The Socioeconomic Status and Built Environments of Australians - Management Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Assignment 1: The socioeconomic status and built environments of Australians in rural and remote regions
Introduction
Australia performs better than many countries in health measures, such as life expectancy. However, recent research suggests that there are areas for improvement. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019) reported that nearly half of the country's residents had one or more chronic complications between 2018 and 2020. Adverse health outcomes are unequally distributed between the different groups of socioeconomic status (SES). Morbidity and mortality were 50% higher in those of low SES than those in the high SES group (Zhao et al., 2013). Unequal healthcare service distribution is also a significant barrier to ensuring quality care to Indigenous Australians and groups living in rural Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018). Their surrounding constructed setting might also contribute to their overall poor health (Renalds et al., 2010). This review will investigate literature that examines the influence of SES and built environment on the health outcomes of countryside Australians.

The health status of rural and remote Australians
Countryside Australians do not have healthcare services accessibility. Although some health and welfare issues affect multiple demographics, others affect specific groups and populations (Bourke et al., 2012). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2020b) disclosed that Australians living in remote and rural areas experience shorter life expectancies, inadequate care services, and higher injuries and are prone to many diseases than Australians living in urban or metropolitan areas. Approximately 28% of the people in that country live in remote and rural regions that lack adequate healthcare facilities and medical personnel (Barclay et al., 2018). This has resulted in a gap in health outcomes between rural and urban Australians.
Social determinants and their influence on the health outcomes of rural and remote Australians
Countryside Australians have poor health results in comparison to their urban residents. This is because rural environments have limited healthcare workforces. Developing professional workforces in rural areas is difficult due to social factors such as access to integration places, community participation and satisfaction, social connections, and rural familiarity and interests (Cosgrave et al., 2019). One of the major social determinants of health that undermines the health of rural Australians is their built environment (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018). This influences health choices in various ways, like physical activity, mental health, access to nutritious diets, poor workplaces, and essential services like clean water, quality health care, and education (Bourke et al., 2012). A metanalysis published in 2009 says that evidence relates the environment to a person's wellbeing (Codinhoto et al., 2009). Thus, the built environment can have a substantial effect on a subpopulation's health.
SES is another social determinant that influences the health of rural and remote Australians. Most individuals residing in remote and rural regions are Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders. Many of these people lack stable employment and proper housing facilities (Bourke et al., 2012). They have to buy goods and access healthcare services like other citizens, but many cannot still do so (Bourke et al., 2012). Despite the cost of living being less for rural and remote people, traveling to get decent healthcare is not financially viable for many. Many rural Australians live in poor-quality houses because they lack adequate funds to construct better houses (Australian Government, 2020). Unsafe housing further exposes them to health issues and complications. Moreover, overweight, smoking and well-being quality of life have all been connected to the Measure of Relative Socioeconomic Vulnerability position (Adams et al., 2009).
How social determinants interact with each other to impact health outcomes in rural and remote Australia
Socioeconomic factors and the built environment interact to influence health outcomes in rural and remote Australia. According to a cohort study conducted in Finland, low SES was related to an elevated hazard for a substantial percentage of the illness conditions evaluated when contrasted to more privileged groups. In addition, the design, environmental analysis, and human development departments in the U. S. published an article stating that there is ‘data indicating that income is inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions’ (Evans & Kantrowitz, 2002, pg. 310). The literature suggests that low SES is linked to poor living conditions, which are linked to adverse health outcomes. These environments lack proper access to quality medical care, are polluted, are congested, and have poor housing.
The coronavirus outbreak has highlighted the harmful outcomes of a built environment occupied by low-income earners (Frumkin, 2021). Socioeconomic factors and the built environment impact the ability of rural residents to access quality medical care. Rural and remote Australians who require specialised medical services, like cancer treatment, are forced to travel long distances to access them ("Our data collections - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare", 2021). While travelling is often not a problem, inadequate economic resources mean that patients cannot fund their transport and medical treatment. According to the World Health Organization (n.d.), inaccessibility to urgent medical amenities has contributed to deaths in remote and rural areas.
Due to the rift between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, Indigenous communities are at a greater risk of exposure to environmental and socioeconomic health risks ("Our data collections - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare", 2021). Due to their low SES, most rural and remote Australians are subject to health inequity. The International Journal for Fairness in Healthcare published a paper examining the links between Native medical outcomes and socioeconomic inequality in Australia's Northern Territory. The results indicate that more than a quarter of NT Native fitness disparities may be explicated by socioeconomic drawbacks (Zhao et al., 2013).

Conclusion
This literature review demonstrates that rural and remote Australians experience healthcare disadvantages. These healthcare challenges are mainly influenced by SES and the surrounding environment they live in. The most rural and remote Australians are Indigenous people, who are often economically disadvantaged. Their residential areas also lack the adequate medical facilities and personnel required to serve the population effectively. Suppose we are to improve the health outcomes of the residents of remote areas in Australia, especially those who are Indigenous or socioeconomically deprived. In that case, we should begin by giving them equal opportunities to access healthcare services.

Assignment 2
Policy options and implications
In Australia, there is currently a program that helps to reduce the gap in healthcare available in urban vs rural areas. The Stronger Rural Health Strategy (SRHS) aims to tackle disparities in healthcare access across Australia's rural and remote regions and includes a range of incentives, such as a workforce incentive program (Whitehead, 2018). Also, there is substantial evidence that effective Primary Health Care (PHC) is linked to improved health outcomes, reduced health expenses and improved health equality (Thomas, 2015). Therefore, combining the advantages of the SRHS and PHC could improve the health outcomes of those living in poor rural areas.
Additionally, The Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training (RHMT) Program, through a system of remote clinical programs, health academic institutions of rural and remote communities and dental institutions that offer different rural deployments, encourages health trainees to pursue rural training. The RHMT Program aims to promote medical specialist retention and recruitment across remote and rural areas (Battye et al., 2020). As a result, it creates sustainable employment and healthcare access. Therefore, in Australia, we currently have three potential existing programs that can be integrated into a multi-disciplinary movement with one goal: to reduce the healthcare gap between rural and urban populations.

Recommendations for action
We must create a team to collaborate between existing Australian programs and the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA). WONCA has developed a specific focus on rural health. They are experts in health promotion and prevention in remote regions all around the globe. The World Health Organization has also partnered with WONCA, and in 2002 they held a joint conference to address the growing concern for the health of people living in remote areas. From this, The Global Initiative on Rural Health was born (Kozhimannil & Henning-Smith, 2021).
If the Australian government partners with this international organisation and integrates it with its already existing programs, optimal results would be achieved. Partnering with WONCA should be part of a national plan to eradicate the disparities in health outcomes between rural and urban populations. An ideal approach would be amalgamating the SRHS, PHC, RHMT and WONCA. We strongly recommend immediate action to form a team of professionals to lead the groups mentioned above.
How would the recommendations address the issues identified?
Integrating the existing Australian programs with WONCA would enhance and build additional links with relevant organisations to sustain the work of health professionals and intern practice in rural areas. The existing institutions would continue with their goals and achieve them, but having a collaborative effort between the teams could be more efficient and amplify their results.
The SRHS would continue in training doctors, nurses and healthcare workers. PHC would focus its effort on the prevention of disease. In turn, the RHMT Program would work towards providing skilled medical personal to regions with shortages. These medical professionals would also provide medical advice and educate the local population during their visits to the clinics. The expertise provided by WONCA’s experience in other countries with similar situations would improve the overall performance of all the mentioned departments.
Additionally, the collaboration would determine local health workforce needs, prioritise activities, improve affordable healthcare and provide employment opportunities. Remote and rural training centres would build consistent and integrated remote professional growth for general practitioners. They would promote the sustainability of trained doctors in rural communities as a strategy to address socioeconomic obstacles.
This collaborative effort would ultimately provide those of socioeconomic disadvantages more equal opportunities to access proper healthcare. The teams would also eliminate adverse health outcomes that result from a poor built environment by educating their patients. Since programs already exist, it is of utmost importance to fund a qualified team to lead and organise efforts carried out by all parties.

This Management Assignment has been solved by our Management experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.
Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.