Get documents about "Managers Recommendation of Promotion
Description
Managers Recommendation of Promotion document sample
Document Sample
LODDON MALLEE REGION
HEALTH PROMOTION WORKFORCE REPORT
2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................... 5
Regional Recommendations ............................................................................... 7
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 9
Glossary of Acronyms ..................................................................................... 10
Background and Rationale ............................................................................... 11
Policy Context ................................................................................................ 13
Methodology .................................................................................................. 13
Materials ....................................................................................................... 13
Procedure and Recruitment ............................................................................. 14
Results ......................................................................................................... 14
Workforce Characteristics ....................................................................... 14
Qualifications ........................................................................................ 16
Health Promotion Responsibilities............................................................. 17
Professional Support and Networking ....................................................... 18
Future Needs and Opportunities ............................................................... 21
Key Findings and Recommendations ......................................................... 28
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion..................................................................................................... 33
References .................................................................................................... 34
Appendix 1 Future Professional Development in HP Practice................................. 35
Appendix 2 Health Promotion Program Areas ..................................................... 37
Appendix 3 Qualitative responses to support received by organisations ................. 38
Appendix 4 Health Promotion Workforce Survey ................................................. 41
Appendix 5 Southern Mallee PCP Area Survey Results ......................................... 48
Appendix 6 Northern Mallee PCP Area Survey Results ......................................... 56
Appendix 7 Bendigo Loddon PCP Area Survey Results ......................................... 64
Appendix 8 Central Victorian Health Alliance Survey Results ................................ 72
Appendix 9 Campaspe PCP Area Survey Results ................................................. 80
2
Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Loddon Mallee PCP Regions ................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Health Promotion Responsibilities by Organisational Type ....................... 17
Figure 3 Health Promotion Short Course participants by field of study ................... 22
Figure 4 Health promotion participants by PCP ................................................... 22
Table 1 Workforce Characteristics..................................................................... 15
Table 2 Qualifications and Health Promotion Responsibilities ................................ 16
Table 3 Professional Support ........................................................................... 19
Table 4 Networking Opportunities..................................................................... 20
Table 5 Future Needs and Opportunities ............................................................ 21
Table 6 Frequency of participants interested in undertaking the HPSC by agency* .. 23
Table 7 Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs .............................. 24
*
Table 8 Percentage of health promotion strengths by organisation type .............. 25
*
Table 9 Percentage of health promotion development needs by organisation type 25
Table 10 Respondents preferred method to develop HP skills ............................... 26
Table 11 Frequency of respondents preferred methods to develop HP skills by
organisation type ........................................................................................... 26
Table 12 Barriers to participating in health promotion events .............................. 27
Table 13: Areas identified by participants for future professional development in HP
practice......................................................................................................... 35
Table 14 SMPCP Workforce Characteristics ........................................................ 49
Table 15 SMPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities ............................................. 49
Table 16 SMPCP Professional Support .............................................................. 50
Table 17 SMPCP Networking Opportunities ........................................................ 51
Table 18 SMPCP Future Needs and Opportunities ............................................... 52
Table 19 SMPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs .................. 53
Table 20 SMPCP Respondents preferred method to developing HP skills ................ 54
Table 21 SMPCP Barriers to developing HP skills ................................................. 54
Table 22 NMPCP Workforce Characteristics ........................................................ 57
Table 23 NMPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities ............................................. 57
Table 24 NMPCP Professional Support ............................................................... 58
Table 25 NMPCP Networking Opportunities ........................................................ 59
Table 26 NMPCP Future Needs and Opportunities ............................................... 60
Table 27 NMPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs .................. 61
Table 28 NMPCP Respondents preferred method for developing HP skills ............... 62
3
Table 29 NMPCP Barriers to developing HP skills ................................................ 62
Table 30 BLPCP Workforce Characteristics ......................................................... 65
Table 31 BLPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities .............................................. 65
Table 32 BLPCP Professional Support ................................................................ 66
Table 33 BLPCP Networking Opportunities ......................................................... 67
Table 34 BLPCP Future Needs and Opportunities ................................................ 68
Table 35 BLPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs ................... 69
Table 36 BLPCP Respondents preferred method and barriers to developing HP skills
.................................................................................................................... 70
Table 37 CVHA Workforce Characteristics .......................................................... 73
Table 38 CVHA Health Promotion Responsibilities ............................................... 73
Table 39 CVHA Professional Support ................................................................. 74
Table 40 CVHA Networking Opportunities .......................................................... 75
Table 41 CVHA Future Needs and Opportunities ................................................. 76
Table 42 CVHA Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs .................... 77
Table 43 CVHA Respondents preferred method to developing HP skills .................. 78
Table 44 CVHA Barriers to developing HP skills .................................................. 78
Table 45 CPCP Workforce Characteristics........................................................... 81
Table 46 CPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities ................................................ 81
Table 47 CPCP Professional Support.................................................................. 82
Table 48 CPCP Networking Opportunities........................................................... 83
Table 49 CPCP Future Needs and Opportunities .................................................. 84
Table 50 CPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs .................... 85
Table 51 CPCP Respondents preferred method for developing HP skills ................. 86
Table 52 CPCP Barriers to developing HP skills ................................................... 86
4
Executive Summary
This Health Promotion Workforce Report (HPWR) presents the findings of the Health
Promotion Workforce (HPW) survey conducted in the Loddon Mallee Region (LMR) in
September 2009, the findings of the Health Promotion Workforce Development
(HPWD) report (Maher, 2008) and advice provided by Capacity Building Steering
Committee (CBSC) members. It will support the planning and implementation of
regional, organisational and catchment-based capacity building initiatives. At a
regional level the Department of Health (DH) will use this information to support the
development of the LMR CBSC action plan for health promotion capacity building
initiatives in the year 2010.
The information in this report includes the survey responses provided by health
promotion workers from a range of organisations including Local Government;
Community and Women’s Health (C&WH); Non-Government Organisations (NGOs);
Community Service Organisations (CSOs) and hospitals (acute health services)1. A
mixture of quantitative and qualitative information was provided by participants with
regard to their qualifications, skills, professional development needs and
organisational support.
The major findings indicate that although there are a considerable number of health
promotion professionals from a diverse range of organisations in the LMR, the
majority of these workers (over 80%) do not have health promotion qualifications;
less than half work full time; and around a quarter have been working in their
position for less than twelve months.
A number of similarities were observed across each of the organisations with regards
to their strengths and further development requirements. Whilst a high level of skill
was reported in areas such as program facilitation, planning, and networking, there
is need for further training in key health promotion areas such as conducting needs
assessments, report writing and the evaluation of programs. The preferred method
of receiving this information is through workshops. The most common health
promotion priority areas listed were Physical Activity, Mental Health and Nutrition.
1
Throughout this report hospitals are referred to as acute health services, in accordance with
the department’s preferred terminology
5
Participants identified increased opportunities for participation in professional
development as a key aspect. Sixty percent of participants indicated that they would
like to complete the Department of Health five-day Health Promotion Short Course
(HPSC); fifty percent said they would attend relevant workshops, and around forty
five percent reported that more networking opportunities would be of benefit. A
number of barriers to participating in professional development opportunities were
identified, with the top three being time, distance and cost.
At the organisational level, less than one quarter of health promotion workers were
found to participate in a formal mentoring and supervision program with the majority
of this support being provided by management. This process was found to be of
benefit to most participants. Almost 60% of those surveyed however, specified that
their internal support needed to be improved. A number of suggestions were
provided such as having ‘more formalised and structured support sessions’ and
allocating ‘more time and resources’ to this process.
While it is clear that there is a strong need for regional training opportunities, the
findings suggest that over half the participants would like more opportunities for
training to be made available internally, and for their managers to have increased
understanding and skills in health promotion. Therefore, professional development
opportunities will need to focus on providing relevant training for health promotion
management in addition to the broader HPW.
The following recommendations aim to inform managers of Health Promotion (HP)
staff, PCP’s and the DH on specific HPW development needs. It is acknowledged that
the need for workforce development will vary greatly across specific organisations.
HP Managers are encouraged to work with PCP’s and utilise the results from their
particular catchment to provide further opportunities for staff.
Please note: PCP Catchment recommendations can be found at the end of each
report (Appendix 5-9).
6
Regional Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Recruitment of HP management and workers with a range of health promotion skills
and experience to improve the quality of health promotion practice.
Recommendation 2
HP Managers should provide HP workers with relevant internal professional
development opportunities that are facilitated by suitably qualified persons.
Recommendation 3
Workshop sessions be implemented for the HPW with a focus on:
1. Needs Assessment
2. Report Writing
3. Evaluation.
Recommendation 4
CBSC members explore opportunities to train suitably qualified HP workers as group
facilitators in each catchment area.
Recommendation 5
Workshops specifically target and include local government health promotion workers
for training based on evaluation and program planning, conducting needs
assessment and research methods.
Recommendation 6
Professional development workshops, forums and seminars incorporate networking
opportunities, including a facilitated networking component.
Recommendation 7
The CBSC should offer a Health Promotion Short Course in 2010.
Recommendation 8
Location is considered when conducting professional development sessions, to allow
for rural and remote participants to attend.
Recommendation 9
The CBSC explore opportunities for web-based professional development and
disseminate details to the HPW.
Recommendation 10
HP workers are encouraged to increase knowledge and skills through increased peer
support, networking and web-based training.
Recommendation 11
The CBSC complete and disseminate the mentoring and supervision package to the
HPW.
7
Recommendation 12
HP Managers provide support to staff through the provision of more formal and
structured mentoring and supervision processes.
Recommendation 13
Managers and supervisors who do not have qualifications or have limited experience
in Health Promotion are encouraged to attend the Health Promotion Short Course
and/or other health promotion training.
Recommendation 14
The CBSC and HP Managers further investigate the need for increased time allocation
for health promotion workers to complete specific health promotion tasks.
8
Acknowledgements
The Department of Health would like to acknowledge the following organisations and
individuals for their analysis, guidance and support in the development of the HPWR.
CBSC Member Agencies
Southern Mallee Primary Care Partnership
Northern Mallee Primary Care Partnership
Campaspe Primary Care Partnership
Central Victorian Health Alliance
Bendigo-Loddon Primary Care Partnership
Bendigo Community Health Service
Swan Hill District Health
Latrobe University, Bendigo
Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
Women’s Health Loddon Mallee
Department of Health
Sally Miller – Student, Health Promotion (LaTrobe University)
Karen Moore – Student, Victorian Public Health Training Scheme
A special thanks to all health promotion workforce survey participants.
9
Glossary of Acronyms
ACCHO Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation
BLPCP Bendigo Loddon Primary Care Partnership
CBSC Capacity Building Steering Committee
CPCP Campaspe Primary Care Partnership
CSO Community Service Organisation
CVHA Central Victorian Health Alliance
C&WH Community and Women’s Health
DH Department of Health
HP Health Promotion
HPN Health Promotion Network
HPSC Health Promotion Short Course
HPW Health Promotion Workforce
HPWD Health Promotion Workforce Development
HPWR Health Promotion Workforce Report
LGA Local Government Area
LMR Loddon Mallee Region
NGO Non Government Organisation
NMPCP Northern Mallee Primary Care Partnership
PCP Primary Care Partnership
SMPCP Southern Mallee Primary Care Partnership
Please note: The Department of Health was formally part of the Department of
Human Services.
10
Background and Rationale
The LMR covers approximately 30% of the state of Victoria and comprises ten Local
Government Areas (LGAs) and five PCP catchments (see Figure 1).
Across the LMR there are a broad range of organisations and individuals providing
health promotion interventions. These include local government, C&WH services,
allied health professionals, CSO’s, NGO’s, acute health services, PCPs and Aboriginal
Controlled Community Health Organisations (ACCHOs). With a growing
understanding of the need to promote health and wellbeing at a population and
individual level, the HPW is expanding and becoming more diverse.
Figure 1 Loddon Mallee PCP Regions
For a number of years funding was provided by the Department of Human Services
to support capacity building initiatives for the LMR HPW. Examples of past initiatives
include the Health Promotion Short Course (2007), Supervision for Managers
Workshop (May 2008), Impact Evaluation Workshop (August 2008), and the Annual
Health Promotion Best Practice Forum (October 2009).
The initiatives outlined above, and others, have been established as a result of the
LMR Health Promotion CBSC. The CBSC provides advice to the DH and key
stakeholders with regard to the identified needs of the LMR HPW. Its key role is in
‘supporting a number of strategies, which build the health promoting capacity of LMR
to deliver quality health promotion practice through organisational development,
workforce development and resource initiatives’ (CBSC Terms of Reference, October
2009). Members of the CBSC include PCP Health Promotion Officers, C&WH and
Tertiary Education representatives and a representative of the Department of
11
Education and Early Childhood Development. The Regional Health Promotion Adviser
and the Public Health Manager, DH also chair and attend these meetings.
The Loddon Mallee Region HPW survey (2009) was commissioned by the CBSC to
further investigate the findings of a preliminary Department of Human Services study
in 2008. The ‘HPWD within the Loddon Mallee Region’ report (2008) presented the
findings of the HPWD study. This study aimed to assess staff qualifications, turnover
and support requirements by conducting qualitative phone interviews with a small
number of participants in 2008. One of the recommendations in the 2008 HPWD
report was that for improved health promotion practice in the LMR, there needed to
be ‘further development and research of the health promotion workforce in particular
within Local Government, Allied Health Organisations and Community Health Nurses’.
The survey findings from the HPWD study (2008) had a number of limitations due to
the small number of organisations and participants that were involved. This study
encompassed only PCPs, HP Managers and HP Workers from the same organisations.
HP workers from Local Government, ACCHOs, NGOs, and allied health professionals
were not included. The initial findings and recommendations made in this report,
were a key driver of the 2009 HPWR, and have played a considerable role in the
development of the 2009 survey.
The information gathered from the 2009 survey, in addition to the findings from the
HPWD report (2008), will inform the planning and implementation of regional,
organisational and PCP catchment based capacity building initiatives for the HPW.
This information will also support the development of the CBSC action plan for
capacity building initiatives in 2010.
‘Developing a shared vision for workforce capacity-building and standards is a critical
foundation for subsequent strategic plans of action, which can be developed by many
stakeholders and partners’.
(Allegrante, Barry, Auld, Lamarre, & Taub, 2009.)
12
Policy Context
Since 2000 the Victorian Department of Human Services has placed greater
emphasis on the provision of quality health promotion practice. The Integrated
Health Promotion Framework included in the PCP strategy has been developed to
guide organisations in best practice. Local Governments undertaking Municipal
Public Health Planning are supported by the Environments for Health framework for
planning, which considers the impact on health and wellbeing of factors originating
across any or all of the built, social, economic, and natural environments
(Department of Human Services, 2006). The Federal Government is also committed
to investing more in preventative health through the National Preventative Health
Strategy. It is now that ‘the capacity of the health promotion workforce is more
important than ever’ (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging, 2009).
It is a key priority of the Region to identify the capacity and development needs of
the HPW, to ensure that we take full advantage of current and future health
promotion programs and funding opportunities as they arise. Currently, health
promotion in the Loddon Mallee Region is funded through a number of state and
federal government departments, together with health promotion organisations and
various charities. For example the DH currently funds integrated health promotion in
fifteen C&WH agencies throughout the LMR.
Methodology
Materials
A thirty eight item questionnaire was developed by the CBSC to gather information
about the qualifications, skills, professional development needs and organisational
support required by the Loddon Mallee Region’s HPW. The questionnaire also
explored specific training needs, preferred structure and style of the training
opportunities, perceived barriers and enablers to attending professional development
events. The Survey Monkey Tool was used to develop and disseminate the
questionnaire to an extensive audience which comprised key agencies within the
health promotion sector.
13
Procedure and Recruitment
The survey was disseminated electronically and completed on-line using the web-
survey hosting service ‘Survey Monkey’, between September 9 and September 23,
2009.
Managers and staff from across the HP sector in the LMR were encouraged to
complete the survey. The survey was emailed to all HP contacts from across the
Region, who are on the Health Promotion Network (HPN) email list. Approximately
250 emails were sent. In addition, a number of organisations with health promotion
responsibilities that weren’t accessible via the PCP and the HPN email lists were
specifically targeted.
Results
100 participants completed the survey. Two respondents were excluded from the
analysis as they were not based in the Loddon Mallee Region. A total of ninety eight
eligible respondents equates to a response rate of 39.2%, this is comparable to other
health workforce surveys (Swerrissen &Tilgner 2000).
Workforce Characteristics
Six participants who completed the survey indicated that they worked for more than
one organisation and three participants worked across two PCP areas. The workforce
was found to be highly skilled with eighty-one participants (83.5%) indicating that
they had undergraduate or post graduate qualifications with 17.3% (n=17) of
participants having a qualification in health promotion (Table 2).
The 2008 HPWD study captured detailed information about the qualifications of PCP
HP workers and HP Managers. These study results identified that 30% of health
promotion workers from PCPs, and none of the eight HP Managers surveyed, held
formal qualifications in health promotion (Maher, 2008). The 2009 HPW survey did
not ask participants to specify their role, i.e. HP Manager or worker, therefore it
cannot be determined how many HP Managers hold health promotion qualifications.
The largest proportion of health promotion staff (n=42; 42.9%) worked for C&WH
Services (Table 1). Eighteen participants (18.4%) worked for acute health services,
eight of whom also worked in C&WH. Sixteen (16.3%) worked for NGOs and fourteen
(14.3%) for local government. Most participants worked in the Southern Mallee PCP
14
region (n=28; 28.6%), with the least working in the Bendigo-Loddon PCP (n=17;
17.3). The low number of participants from the Bendigo-Loddon region may be
attributed to one agency missing the cut-off period for survey completion. This
agency employs approximately nineteen staff, of whom each has some level of
health promotion responsibility.
Almost one quarter of the workforce had been working in their current position for
less than twelve months; almost two thirds (n=64; 65.9%) for five years or less;
and less than half the workforce worked full time (n=46; 47.4%). Participants were
not requested to report the EFT fraction of their role that is health promotion, which
would have provided further insight into the nature of the HP workforce. The results
differed from the 2008 HPWD Report, where most participants had an average of 6-
10 years experience in health promotion, with only one worker having had less than
a year of experience. All HP workers interviewed for the 2008 HPWD report were in
their first health promotion roles (Maher, 2008).
Table 1 Workforce Characteristics
Number (%)
*
Who do you work for Community health 42 (42.9)
Hospital 18 (18.4)
Non-government organisation 16 (16.3)
Local Government 14 (14.3)
Community service organisation 10 (10.2)
PCP 5 (5.1)
State Government 2 (2.0)
Which PCP area are you located in* Southern Mallee 28 (28.6)
Central Victorian Health Alliance 26 (26.5)
Northern Mallee 24 (24.7)
Campaspe 22 (22.4)
Bendigo Loddon 17 (17.3)
Time in current position < 1 year 24 (24.7)
1-3 years 27 (27.8)
3-5 years 13 (13.4)
More than 5 years 33 (34.0)
Skipped question 1
*
What is the nature of your role Part time 36 (36.7)
Full time 46(47.4)
Contract/fixed 12 (12.4)
Ongoing 9 (11.0)
Skipped question 16
Highest level of education VCE (or equivalent) 8 (8.2)
Diploma/Certificate 7 (7.2)
Undergraduate 33 (34.0)
Postgraduate 48 (49.5)
Other 1 (1.0)
Skipped question 1
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
15
Qualifications
23.5% of participants have qualifications in nursing (Table 2), and seventeen
participants (17.3%) specified having a health promotion qualification. “Other”
qualifications included public health (n=5), administration/business/policy (n=5),
education (n=4), biological and applied sciences (n=4), welfare/counselling (n=4),
disability studies (n=3), nutrition/naturopathy (n=2), psychology (n=2) and
environmental health (n=1). Twenty-one participants had more than one
qualification.
Program planning, implementation, evaluation and coordination were high on the list
of responsibilities undertaken by health promotion staff. Between two thirds and
three quarters of participants were involved in aspects of program planning,
implementation and evaluation, with half (n= 49; 50.0%) involved in conducting
needs analyses. This could be due to the evidence being collected by external
parties such as consultants, (employed by local government and/or PCPs), however
further investigation into this area may be warranted. Only fifteen participants
(15.3%) indicated that health research was a responsibility for them. More than half
(n=51; 53%) of the participants involved indicated that they did not have sufficient
time to complete their tasks (Table 2).
Table 2 Qualifications and Health Promotion Responsibilities
Field of study*
Nursing 23 (23.5)
Allied health 18 (18.4)
Health promotion 17 (17.3)
Community development 15 (15.3)
Social work 13 (13.3)
Other 39 (39.8)
Health promotion responsibilities*
Program planning 75 (76.5)
Program implementation 68 (69.4)
Program evaluation 67 (68.4)
Program coordination 66 (67.3)
Networking 61 (62.2)
Health education 52 (53.1)
Group facilitation 51 (52.0)
Needs assessment 49 (50.0)
Management 38 (38.8)
Health Research 15 (15.3)
Do you have adequate time to complete these tasks?
No 51 (53.1)
Yes 44 (45.8)
Skipped question 3
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
16
Health Promotion Responsibilities
Participants were asked what types of programs they were involved in. The majority
were involved in a range of programs. The most frequently mentioned included
programs with a focus on physical activity (n=43), mental health (n=27), and
nutrition/healthy eating (n=26). Others included men’s health (27), sexual health
(10), adolescent health (10), diabetes (9), chronic disease (9), women’s health (7),
children and early years programs (7), cardiac health (6), alcohol and drugs (5) &
asthma (5). In addition were Indigenous health, school programs, domestic violence,
sustainable farming families and programs for the aged (see Appendix 2).
Figure 2 shows health promotion activities by organisational type. Workers in the
areas of community service and acute health services are more involved in needs
assessments than the other sectors. Health promotion workers from all sectors have
responsibilities in program planning, evaluation, coordination and networking. Those
working in acute health services indicated that they have little responsibility in
program implementation. Group facilitation is more common for workers in C&WH
and acute health services, health education was more important for those in C&WH,
CSOs and acute health services and management responsibilities were similar across
all organisations. Around 30% of acute health service staff with health promotion
responsibilities indicated that they had a role in health research. This was
considerably more than for health promotion workers in any of the other areas where
responsibility ranged from 7% for local government to 14% for CSO’s and C&WH.
Figure 2 Health Promotion Responsibilities by Organisational Type
Community Health
Hospital
Local Government
100
Community service
90
NGO
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
n
n
n
Ed
n
g
t
h
ng
tio
en
ss
io
tio
in
io
rc
at
ta
at
nn
se
ki
em
l th
ea
lita
or
lu
en
in
as
la
ea
es
ag
ci
va
rd
w
P
em
Fa
H
R
et
ds
oo
an
E
og
N
l th
pl
ee
og
C
up
M
Pr
Im
ea
N
og
Pr
ro
H
og
G
Pr
Pr
Health promotion responsibilites
17
Professional Support and Networking
Eighteen participants (23.1%) indicated that they took part in a formal professional
support program; four were involved as both mentors and mentees (Table 3). Most
participants specified that they received health promotion support from
management. A small number of participants received support on a regular basis,
but for others it was irregular, either being when required or ad hoc. The majority of
participants found the support of value (n=63; 80.8%). Those who valued this
support identified various reasons as to how it benefited them. The most common
themes were that it allowed them to reflect on process, planning and continuous
improvement; “...allows me to learn and reflect on the progress and plan
improvements...” it provided guidance “...clarifies direction...”; it increased
knowledge, provided a “sounding board”; and generally provided support. Of those
who suggested that the support was not beneficial, the most common reasons were
that there was not enough time, that it lacked structure and that there was no-one
available to provide this support. Thirty-nine participants (59.1%) thought the
process could be improved.
Suggestions for improvement included:
• [Formal] support programs need to be actively promoted across the
organisation.
• The process needs to be more structured and formalised.
• Time and resources are needed.
• More educational/professional development courses should be available.
• More information and resources about health promotion activities that work in
Australia should be made available.
The 2008 HPWD report lists similar findings, with most participants also feeling
supported by managers. Additional comments with regard to managerial support
suggested that ‘a higher level of understanding and skills in health promotion was
important’ in addition to ‘recognition of workers’ skills and knowledge’. It also
advised that further health promotion education is required for allied health services
to support HP practices and workers within acute health services/organisations.
Managers have their own perspective about the needs of staff with ‘team planning,
peer support and personal development training’ arising as the most important
supports that they thought they could provide to their staff (Maher, 2008).
18
Table 3 Professional Support
Number (Valid %)
Do you participate in a formal support program?
No 60 (76.9)
Yes 18 (23.1)
Skipped question 20
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee?*
Supervisor 25 (25.5)
Mentor 10 (10.2)
Mentee 14 (14.3)
Skipped question 58 (58.2)
Who provides you with support in your health
promotion role?*
Management 56 (77.8)
Others – (PCPs, Peers, External agencies 31 (43.1)
Health promotion coordinators, management
committees or boards, supervisors, no one)
Skipped question 27
If you receive support how often?
Daily 7 (11.3)
Weekly 13 (21.0)
Fortnightly 11 (17.7)
Monthly 14 (22.6)
Annually 1 (1.6)
Other –(No support/add hoc/less than monthly) 16 (25.8)
Skipped question 36
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?
No 15 (19.2)
Yes 63 (80.8)
Skipped question 20
Is there anything that could be done to improve this
process?
No 27 (40.9)
Yes 39 (59.1)
Skipped question 32
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Most participants were satisfied with their internal networking opportunities (n=71;
89.9%) (Table 4). Those who were not satisfied indicated that internal networking is
limited for small agencies, and that their organisation’s staff may have limited
knowledge of health promotion, thereby making networking of limited use. Improved
communication and a more formal structure were suggested to be of value.
External networking was undertaken by seventy-three (92.4%) participants across
the region, as well as on a state wide, and to a lesser extent, national basis. Sixty-
four (84.2%) participants indicated that they could benefit from more external
networking opportunities, in particular training (n=54; 75%), workshops (n=47;
65.3%), forums (n=45; 62.5%) and seminars (n=40; 55.6%). Most of the
19
participants preferred face to face networking (n=65; 84.4%), but over a third were
also happy with web-based options (n=26; 33.8%). Seventy-two participants
(93.5%) indicated that they would benefit from facilitated networking sessions held
in conjunction with professional development programs.
Table 4 Networking Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Do you have satisfactory internal networking
opportunities? No 8 (10.1)
Yes 71 (89.9)
Skipped question 19
Do you network externally?
No 6 (7.6)
Yes 73 (92.4)
Skipped question 19
If yes where do you network?*
Bendigo Loddon 40 (55.6)
Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke 38 (52.8)
State-wide 33 (45.8)
Metropolitan 25 (34.7)
Mildura 24 (33.3)
Campaspe 22 (30.6)
Central Goldfields 20 (27.8)
Nationally 14 (19)
Skipped question 27
Do you feel you would benefit from more opportunities to
network? No 12 (15.8)
Yes 64 (84.2)
Skipped question 22
If yes, what would you be most likely to attend across
the Loddon Mallee Region?*
Training 54 (75.0)
Workshops 47 (65.3)
Forums 45 (62.5)
Seminars 40 (55.6)
Meet and greet discussion groups 28 (38.9)
Skipped question 27
*
How do you prefer to network? Face to face 65 (84.4)
Forums 41 (53.2)
Seminars 32 (41.6)
Web based 26 (33.8)
Phone calls 20 (26.0)
Skipped question 22
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated
network sessions in conjunction with existing
professional development courses/seminars etc? No 5 (6.9)
Yes 72 (93.5)
Skipped question 22
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
20
Future Needs and Opportunities
Nineteen (24.1%) participants indicated they had participated in the Health
Promotion Short Course (HPSC), with all of those having done so prior to 2008
(Table 5).
Table 5 Future Needs and Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Have you participated in the DHS health promotions 5-day
Short course (HPSC)?
No 60 (75.9)
Yes(all prior to 2008) 19 (24.1)
Skipped 20
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5 day course to
your practice? No 2 (10.5)
Yes 17 (89.5)
Did you use the 5-day health promotion course to continue
your formal education in health promotion?
No 13 (68.4)
Yes 6 (31.6)
If you haven’t previously done the 5-day HP course would
you be interested in participating in the future?
No 24 (40.0)
Yes 36 (60.0)
Do you feel you require further professional development
in health promotion practice?
No 24 (33.3)
Yes 48 (66.7)
Skipped question 26
Which of the following health promotion development
options have you participated previously?*
Workshops 39 (75.0)
Seminars 36 (69.2)
Mental health short course 27 (51.9)
Health promotion introductory course (1 day) 7 (13.5)
Indigenous health promotion short course 4 (8.0)
Skipped question 46
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Of those who had participated in the HPSC, eleven (57.9%) had come from a nursing
background (Figure 3) and seven (36.8%) were located in the Bendigo Loddon PCP
Catchment (BLPCP) (Figure 4). Participants were asked if they had been able to use
the HPSC in their HP activities and to specify in what areas. Seventeen (89.5%) of
those who had completed the HPSC indicated they had been able to apply it in
practice. Seven participants indicated that most, or all aspects, were applicable to
the work they did, and five identified specific areas such as program planning and
evaluation or needs analysis. One participant stated that they had not used it in
practice and that it had been poorly run.
21
Figure 3 Health Promotion Short Course participants by field of study
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Nursing Health Allied health Community Social w ork Other
Promotion Development
Figure 4 Health promotion participants by PCP
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Bendigo CVHA Campaspe Sth Mallee* Nth Mallee
Loddon*
* 2 participants w orked in both the Bendigo Loddon and Sth Mallee PCPs
The areas of the HPSC that participants found most relevant were associated with
planning; evaluation; identification of needs; a general understanding of the social
determinants of health; behaviour change and identifying where resources were
available for continued learning. When asked what areas were least relevant, one
respondent stated ‘evaluation’ and another indicated that there was ‘some repetitive
22
content’. Almost one third of those who had completed the HPSC had used it to
continue their formal education in health promotion. Of those who had not completed
the HPSC, thirty-six (60%) indicated that they would be interested in participating.
Further support for the HPSC was observed in the 2008 report, with four out of five
PCP HP workers suggesting that the HPSC is beneficial in producing quality health
promotion work ‘provided the worker was supported within their organisation after
completing the course’ (Maher, 2008).
Table 6 Frequency of participants interested in undertaking the HPSC by
agency*
Community NGO Hospital Local Community PCP
health government service
12 (33.3%) 8 (22.2%) 8 (22.2%) 7 (19.4%) 3 (8.3%) 1 (2.8%)
*
Numbers (percentages) do not add to 36 (100%) as some participants work for multiple
agencies.
Forty-eight participants (66.7%) required further professional development in health
promotion. Seventeen suggested that continual updating of skills was very
important. Others identified specific areas of interest such as evaluation (n=5),
engagement (n=3), needs analysis (n=2), ethics, media usage, best practice,
preparing presentations and disadvantaged health issues. Four stated that they had
‘little or no experience in health promotion, so any training would be useful’.
Participants were also asked ‘what are your strengths in health promotion’? Forty-
seven (62.7%) indicated facilitation and program planning as strengths, followed by
networking (n=43; 57.3%), implementation (n=41; 54.7%) and education (n=36;
48.0%). Less than a third of participants specified having skills in the areas of
evaluation (n=24; 32.0%), needs assessment (n=19; 25.3%) and health research
(n=10; 13.3%). Participants identified a number of areas where they felt their skills
could be further developed. At the top of the list were needs assessments, report
writing and evaluation (Table 7).
23
Table 7 Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs
Number (Valid %)
What are your strengths in the area of health
promotion?*
Facilitation 47 (62.7)
Program planning 47 (62.7)
Networking 43 (57.3)
Implementation 41 (54.7)
Education 36 (48.0)
Evaluation 24 (32.0)
Needs assessment 19 (25.3)
Research methods 10 (13.3)
Other 7 (9.3)
Skipped question 23
How could you further develop your skills in Health
Promotion?*
Needs assessment 38 (49.4)
Report writing 38 (49.4)
Evaluation 37 (48.1)
Policy 34 (44.2)
Management and leadership 33 (42.9)
Research methods 32 (41.6)
Conference presentation 31 (40.3)
Program planning 30 (39.0)
Advocacy 22 (28.6)
Networking 20 (26.0)
Facilitation 16 (20.8)
Education 16 (20.8)
Implementation 13 (16.9)
Skipped question 22
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Health promotion strengths and development needs were further analysed by
organisational type (Tables 8 & 9). Strengths in facilitation were identified by around
75% of C&WH and acute health service workers, but only 40% of CSO’s. The most
frequently identified skill by workers from non government organisations was
networking (n=10; 71.4%). Local government health promotion workers had a low
number of self-perceived health promotion strengths. No local government workers
identified strengths in the areas of evaluation, needs assessment or research
methods. Analysis of local government development needs showed that their
highest priority was to develop evaluation skills (66.7%) followed by program
planning skills (44.4%) (Table 9).
Further development in needs assessments was a top priority for workers in four of
the five organisation types. Evaluation skills were important for C&WH, local
government and CSOs. Acute health service HP workers and those from NGOs
identified development needs in the areas of policy and management and leadership,
whilst report writing was identified as a development need by C&WH (58.3%) and
24
CSO (80.0%) workers. Results from the 2008 HPWD study reiterate those of the
2009 HPWR with suggestions for up-skilling including evaluation and program
planning in addition to management and leadership. The documentation of results for
further research, policy, advocacy and consultation techniques was also highlighted
(Maher, 2008).
*
Table 8 Percentage of health promotion strengths by organisation type
Community Non Local Community
health Hospital Government Government service
(n=33) (n=16) (n=14) (n=9) (n=5)
HP strengths % % % % %
Facilitation 75.8 75.0 57.1 55.6 40.0
Program planning 66.7 62.5 57.1 55.6 60.0
Networking 60.6 37.5 71.4 44.4 60.0
Implementation 63.6 43.8 42.9 44.4 40.0
Education 69.7 62.5 35.7 22.2 40.0
Evaluation 27.3 43.8 50.0 0.0 20.0
Needs assessment 24.2 25.0 42.9 0.0 20.0
Research methods 12.1 18.8 14.3 0.0 0.0
Table 9 Percentage of health promotion development needs by organisation
type *
Non Local Community
Community Hospital Government Government service
health (n=16) (n=14) (n=9) (n=5)
Skill development areas (n=36) % % % % %
Needs assessment 58.3 68.8 57.1 11.1 60.0
Report writing 58.3 50.0 35.7 33.3 80.0
Evaluation 52.8 43.8 35.7 66.7 60.0
Policy 38.9 68.8 50.0 11.1 40.0
Management/Leadership 41.7 62.5 50.0 33.3 40.0
Research methods 38.9 43.8 35.7 33.3 40.0
Conference presentation 41.7 56.3 35.7 33.3 40.0
Program planning 41.7 37.5 42.9 44.4 40.0
Advocacy 27.8 43.8 42.9 0.0 40.0
Networking 22.2 31.3 35.7 22.2 20.0
Facilitation 16.7 12.5 21.4 11.1 40.0
Education 13.9 25.0 14.3 22.2 40.0
Implementation 13.9 12.5 28.6 22.2 0.0
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
25
The methods identified by participants as being the most effective for developing
their skills were internal professional development opportunities (n=43;57.3%) and
workshops (n=41; 54.7%). Other methods are listed in Table 10 and preferred
methods by organisation type are listed in Table 11.
Table 10 Respondents preferred method to develop HP skills
Number (Valid %)
Which of the following will be most effective in further
developing your skills?*
Professional development opportunities-internally 43 (57.3)
Workshops 41 (54.7)
Networking 34 (45.3)
Mentoring/Supervision 31 (41.3)
Management with increased knowledge/skills of HP 30 (40.0)
Seminars 29 (38.7)
Stronger professional relationships 28 (37.3)
Management/leadership 26 (37.3)
HP Short Course (5-day) 19 (25.3)
Tertiary or TAFE qualification 19 (25.3)
HP Introductory course (1 day) 17 (22.7)
DHS support 13 (17.3)
PCP support 11 (14.7)
Skipped question 23
Table 11 Frequency of respondents preferred methods to develop HP skills
by organisation type
Community Non Local Community
health Hospital Government Government service
(n=36) (n=16) (n=14) (n=9) (n=5)
% % % % %
Professional development
opportunities -internally 63.9 60.0 64.3 33.3 30.0
Workshops 63.9 66.7 21.4 55.6 20.0
Networking 44.4 53.3 35.7 33.3 30.0
Mentoring/Supervision 44.4 53.3 35.7 33.3 10.0
Management with increased
knowledge/skills of HP 38.9 60.0 42.9 33.3 30.0
Seminars 36.1 46.7 14.3 55.6 30.0
Stronger professional
relationships 33.3 33.3 28.6 55.6 30.0
Management/leadership 30.6 53.3 42.9 22.2 10.0
HP Short Course (5-day) 27.8 26.7 21.4 33.3 20.0
Tertiary or TAFE
qualification 27.8 20.0 28.6 11.1 10.0
HP Introductory course (1
day) 16.7 20.0 42.9 22.2 10.0
DHS support 16.7 20.0 7.7 11.1 10.0
PCP support 16.7 20.0 0 33.3 10.0
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
26
Finally participants were asked to identify any barriers they encountered in attending
health promotion development events (Table 12). Time, distance and cost were
identified as barriers by most of the participants. Sixty-one participants (81.3%)
identified time as a barrier. This was also cited in the 2008 HPWD report as
attendance at health promotion events was ‘hard to achieve because of either no
other HP workers or time constraints to focus on health promotion’ (Maher, 2008).
Participants offered further comments on barriers to attendance which included
themes around the difficulty for rural workers attending activities where travelling
and overnight stays were required. It was noted that workers “have to contribute to
costs”, that there is a lack of support from organisations, “knowledge not supported
by my organisation” and problems associated with getting approval to attend
professional development opportunities for part time workers. Concerns were also
raised that courses needed to be relevant and one participant indicated that on-line
learning would be preferable.
Table 12 Barriers to participating in health promotion events
N (%)
What do you feel are the barriers to participating in
health promotion development events?
Time 61 (81.3)
Distance 56 (74.7)
Cost 46 (61.3)
Other 13 (17.3)
Skipped question 23
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
27
Key Findings and Recommendations
The Health Promotion Workforce survey identified a number of workforce
development issues which require further attention.
Recommendations address each of the key findings below and are targeted at the
HPW, HP Managers, PCPs, the CBSC and the DH.
Qualifications
Recommendation 1
Recruitment of HP management and workers with a range of health promotion skills
and experience to improve the quality of health promotion practice.
• Eighty-one participants (83.5%) indicated that they had undergraduate or
post graduate qualifications. 17.3% (n=17) of participants had a qualification
in HP.
• Nineteen participants (24.1%) specified that they had participated in the
HPSC.
• The majority of participants who completed the survey indicated having
qualifications in nursing (n=23; 23.5%).
• Almost one quarter of the workforce had been working in their current
position for less than 12 months, almost two thirds (n=64; 65.9%) for 5
years or less and less than half the workforce worked full time (n=46;
47.4%).
• The largest proportion of health promotion staff (n=42; 42.9%) worked in
C&WH services.
Skills
Recommendation 2
HP Managers should provide HP workers with relevant internal professional
development opportunities that are facilitated by suitably qualified persons.
Recommendation 3
Workshop sessions are implemented for the HPW with a focus on:
1. Needs Assessment
2. Report Writing
3. Evaluation.
Recommendation 4
CBSC members explore opportunities to train suitably qualified HP workers as group
facilitators in each catchment area.
28
Recommendation 5
Workshops specifically target and include local government health promotion workers
for training based on evaluation and program planning, conducting needs
assessment and research methods.
• 66.7% of participants indicated they required further professional
development in HP.
• Suggestions for the methods most effective for developing skills include
internal professional development opportunities (n=43; 57.3%) and
workshops (n=41; 54.7%).
• Further skilling in the areas of needs assessment (49.4%), report writing
(49.4%), evaluation (48.1%) and policy (44.2%) were identified by
participants.
• No local government HP workers felt they had strengths in the areas of
evaluation, needs assessment or research methods with the majority seeking
further development in both evaluation and program planning.
Professional Development
Recommendation 6
Professional development workshops, forums and seminars incorporate networking
opportunities, including a facilitated networking component.
Recommendation 7
The CBSC should offer a Health Promotion Short Course in 2010.
Recommendation 8
Location is considered when conducting professional development sessions, to allow
for rural and remote participants to attend.
Recommendation 9
The CBSC explore opportunities for web-based professional development and
disseminate details to the HPW.
• 93.5% of participants suggested that they would benefit from attending
facilitated networking sessions in conjunction with existing professional
development opportunities.
• Of those who had not previously taken part in the HPSC, thirty-six people
(60%) indicated that they would be interested in completing this in the
future.
• The largest barriers identified by participants to attending health promotion
events were time (81.3%), distance (74.7%) and cost (61.3%).
• Sixty-four (84.2%) participants indicated that they could benefit from more
external networking opportunities, in particular training (n=54; 75%),
workshops (n=47; 65.3%), forums (n=45; 62.5%) and seminars (n=40;
55.6%).
29
• Most participants preferred face to face networking (n=65; 84.4%), with over
a third suggesting they would also be happy with web-based options (n=26;
33.8%).
Organisational Support
Recommendation 10
HP workers are encouraged to increase knowledge and skills through increased peer
support, networking and web-based training.
Recommendation 11
The CBSC complete and disseminate the mentoring and supervision package to the
HPW.
Recommendation 12
HP Managers provide support to staff through the provision of more formal and
structured mentoring and supervision processes.
Recommendation 13
Managers and supervisors who do not have qualifications or have limited experience
in Health Promotion are encouraged to attend the Health Promotion Short Course
and/or other health promotion training.
Recommendation 14
The CBSC and HP Managers further investigate the need for increased time allocation
for health promotion workers to complete specific health promotion tasks.
• 76.9% of participants do not take part in a formal mentoring and supervision
program. Of those who do, most receive their support from management
(77.8%) with 59.1% suggesting this process could be improved.
• No HP Managers (out of eight interviewed in 2008) held formal qualifications
in health promotion. Two Managers did have experience within a health
related field (HPWD, 2008).
• More than half (n=51; 53%) of the participants involved indicated that they
did not have sufficient time to complete their tasks.
Note: Catchment-based recommendations for HP workforce development have been
made for each of the five PCPs. These recommendations are located at the end of
each PCP Report (Appendices 5-9).
30
Discussion
The 2009 HP Workforce survey was undertaken to examine the findings of the 2008
HPWD Report and to determine the current health promotion capacity and
development needs of the LMR HPW, canvassing a larger target group. A number of
similarities are evident in the 2008 HPWD report and the 2009 HPWR results. In
particular a number of common themes were identified as potential barriers to
effective HP and professional development.
The HPW was found to be highly qualified with more than 80% having undergraduate
or postgraduate qualifications. Less than one fifth of these participants, however,
came from the field of health promotion and only 24% had undertaken the five- day
HPSC. With a number of participants in the health promotion field not having any
form of HP training, it is possible that a lack of experience in the core competencies
will impact on the workers ability to effectively plan, implement and evaluate HP
strategies.
The 2009 survey results highlight that more than half the participants did not have
time to complete their HP tasks. The fact that the majority of the workforce works
part time, may be a contributing factor. Time management was also a concern
discussed in the 2008 HPWD report. This was attributed to many health promotion
staff being sole workers in their fields and for some; time constraints impacted on
the completion of health promotion work (Maher, 2008). The part-time nature of the
workforce may also act as a barrier to the ability of HP staff members to attend
training courses. It was not possible to determine the percentage of workers who
were ongoing or on contract, but these working arrangements may also be barriers
to participation in further training and development opportunities.
Less than one quarter of respondents were found to be involved in a formal
mentoring and supervision support program. This is concerning as one quarter of the
participants had been in their role less than twelve months. Of those who do receive
support, most considered it beneficial. Of those who do not participate in this process
or receive very little support, a more organised and structured approach, with
allocation of sufficient time, was high on the list of requirements.
Similar findings are evident in the 2008 HPWD report, although most health
promotion workers generally received some type of professional support. Participants
31
in the 2009 HPW survey reiterated comments found in the 2008 HPWD report, which
suggested that their managers lacked the understanding and skills in health
promotion to adequately support HP staff. This is supported by the extremely low
numbers of HP Managers with qualifications in this field (Maher, 2008).
Program planning, implementation, evaluation and coordination responsibilities are
undertaken by the majority of the HPW. These functions are shown to be
predominantly in the areas of physical activity, mental health and nutrition, which
link directly to the most common health promotion priorities selected by C&WH and
PCPs for the years 2006-2009.
A strong need for further health promotion training was identified by HP staff, with
most determining areas such as needs assessment, report writing and evaluation as
of most importance. The preferred method to undertake this training was through
internal professional development opportunities and workshops. The positive
feedback for the HPSC however, together with the large number of participants
interested in participating in this training, suggests that the HPSC may be another
successful means of up skilling the workforce.
Local government staff undertaking health promotion activities displayed the lowest
self assessed HP skills/strengths. It would be necessary however, to investigate the
level of health promotion knowledge required for individual organisations such as
local governments, which have varying health promotion roles and responsibilities.
For example, the survey results indicate that evaluation and program planning are
key areas for development identified by local government HP workers. Professional
development opportunities may be provided by encouraging participation in the
HPSC or by providing workshops that concentrate on increasing these particular
skills. Future training courses should be designed to accommodate organisational
needs as much as possible.
Barriers to participating in HP events were predominantly time constraints and
distance. Distance was the greatest barrier to attending events by HP workers in the
Northern and Southern Mallee PCP areas. Other studies have also identified distance
as a barrier to attending HP training (Swerissen and Tilgner, 2000). The large
advances in web based training may provide a solution for further professional
development in rural areas.
32
Conclusion
The LMR CBSC recognises that the HPW requires further opportunities to participate
in professional development at a regional, PCP catchment and organisational level. It
is clear that there is a demand for the Health Promotion Short Course in addition to
workshops that take into account specific topics such as needs assessment, report
writing and evaluation. Barriers such as time, distance and cost should be carefully
considered during the planning of these initiatives. Based on these findings, the DH,
PCPs and CBSC members will continue to support the HPW by implementing regional
and PCP-based capacity building initiatives. HP Managers should give consideration
to the provision of (tailored) training to support HP staff. These strategies and
others listed in the recommendations will build the health promoting capacity of the
LMR and enable it to continue to deliver quality health promotion practice.
33
References
Department of Health and Aging. (22 October 2009) Australia’s First Preventative
Health Agency. Retrieved 13 January 2010 from
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr09-nr-
nr182.htm
Department of Human Services. (2006). Health Promotion Priorities for Victoria. A
discussion paper. Victorian Government, Melbourne. Retrieved 13 January 2010 from
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/healthpromotion/downloads/discuss_paper.pdf
Maher, B. (2008), Health Promotion Workforce Development within the Loddon
Mallee Region Report (Department of Human Services Internal Document).
Swerrissen, H. and Tilgner, L. A workforce survey of health promotion education and
training needs in the State of Victoria. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public
Health 2000; 24, 4 407-412
Toward Domains of Core Competency for Building Global Capacity in Health
Promotion: The Galway Consensus Conference Statement (Draft, April 2009)
http://www.iuhpe.org/uploaded/Activities/Cap_building/Galway_Consensus_Stateme
nt.pdf
34
Appendix 1 Future Professional Development in HP Practice.
Table 13: Areas identified by participants for future professional development in
HP practice.
You don’t know what you don’t know - recent Being kept up to date with latest best practice,
motivational interviewing sessions very helpful ethics, research/writing for publication
You can always learn new things Art for Health as a focus - YES
Yes- It would be great to have an extension It is always good to revisit learning’s and look at
program from the short course newer evidence
Yes as HP is such a diverse practice ongoing An update would be good for our BLPCP HP
education is vital workers, further to the short course
Yes - an update on practice evidence Any
Always update and determine changing face of
Updates would be beneficial
what is acceptable as Health promotion
Unsure- completed some health promotion Always use an update been sometime since l
during tertiary studies 3 years ago. have done any training in this area
A course that extends on undergrad HP studies,
Unable to undertake any further due to role.
not recovering university studies, but extended
Happy to support other staff.
to more complex applications.
To develop my Health Promotion skills further 5 days is a long time for a single training session
Since it is always changing and is a new field I
More time needed for this but not allocated in
feel we are always having to further develop our
job role/paid time
skills
Open to continual learning improvement Its already good to learn from others
Program planning, evaluation and best practice. Always open to professional growth
I would really benefit from undertaking the HP
Preparing and presenting power points. Public
short course. I also think ongoing workshops on
speaking. Other methods of presenting
needs analysis, community consultation &
information.
evaluation methods would be useful
Our organisation is a day support service for
people with an intellectual disability and I WANT TO DO FURTHER STUDY IN HP...MANY
professional development in health development BARRIERS-MONEY,TIME,LACK OF SUPPORT
would assist support staff with health practise.
Resources are very helpful. Discussion around I have two young children so if a health
implementation of resources and ongoing promotion course was available locally this
support would be of great benefit
Ongoing PD always useful Community engagement, media usage
35
Table 13: Areas identified by participants for future professional development in HP practice.
Not sure what exactly, but I only did a small I come from a clinical background and have no
amount in my course through electives. The rest experience in promotion, no others around me
I have picked up as I went along either in my service
Never to old to learn and the world is changing Greater understanding and a holistic approach
constantly including welfare
Needs analysis and evaluation Further PD is always beneficial
My training is not in the IHP field would benefit
Further development is always needed
from this
More training Evaluation, mental health, Indigenous health
Definitely Evaluation skills; analysing data
Broad overview may be helpful Engaging & working with disadvantaged
How to engage the disengaged community
Considering completing PG dip HP next year
members
Can always learn more
36
Appendix 2 Health Promotion Program Areas
Table 14: Top 13 health promotion program areas participants were
involved in.
Program Area Number
Physical activity 43
Mental health 27
Nutrition or healthy eating 26
Sexual & reproductive health 10
Youth/Adolescents 10
Diabetes 9
Chronic disease 9
Children & Early Years Programs 7
Women's Health 7
Cardiac health 6
Alcohol & Other Drugs 5
Asthma 5
Oral health 5
37
Appendix 3 Qualitative responses to support received by
organisations
If you receive support in your health promotion role is this beneficial? Q16
‘yes’ answers
ad hoc but works
Allows for reflective practice and to deconstruct experiences with an external entity
allows me to learn and reflect on progress and process and plan improvements for
the future
At times and certain situation yes
because I know there is someone I can contact daily to provide help and assistance
Clarifies direction taking
Currently it is adequate
Definitely/ provides supervision & guidance
discussion, ideas, best practise
ensure maintenance of high professional standard
Extremely beneficial as they have knowledge in both health promotion and our local
area.
Good to have ongoing support and lucky we have it internally
good to reflect and plan with heads from different levels
Good way to know if you are progressing in the right direction
Governance group provides clear direction and assists with setting strategy
health promotion cannot be effective in done in isolation
Helps focus and reflect on practice and future directions
Helps stay on track with goals and issues
Informal support, not structured
It give me an opportunity to discuss any issues that I face during my current role
It gives me current information to pass onto my clients.
It would be beneficial to PD, but doesn't take place
It would be if I was able to utilise it to support and broaden my knowledge and
practice
Keep in line with best practice, sharing resources, networking
Keeps health a priority
Keeps me in my boundaries
Keeps me updated and knowing other avenues I can use
Manager is very knowledgeable in HP and Partnerships
Mildly as it is a tool for reflection and gaining support and other opinions about
practices
Mostly as its a practitioner to bounce ideas off of
Necessary for professional development
Network with other agencies for health promotion across the division in general
practices
Opportunity to ask questions, go through information.
PCP provides support, advice, knowledge and feedback on work I have completed
provides a sounding board for alternative contingencies or action; mentoring
provides direction, feedback, explanations
Regular support and good communication ensures that you are "on the right track"
See answer below
Support given both on an informal and formal basis is important
Team approach
the support is provided as part of overall program discussions
this process improves understanding of how HP fits with the organisation
To discuss relevant information
38
Very helpful, allows reflective practice. re focus, remain solution focussed
We touch base so l can move on with my activities, no other staff in my field to
discuss ideas etc.
We utilise peer support - beneficial as we all can work together on strategies
Yes (4 responses)
Yes as it helps me to expand on my current knowledge
Yes as the person is very knowledgeable
Yes continuing validation and improvement and support
yes given the small amount of programs we deliver
Yes- manager provides leadership re: partnership development. Good to have a
'sounding board'
yes- support, talk about role
Yes this would be
yes time to reflect on best practice
Yes- To assist with my management and IHP skills
yes will e but needs to be done regularly
Yes, an informal, casual and regular process is useful
Yes, Program Manager very accessible and progressive in her ideas
Yes, we use critical reflection in the group which keeps me sane and helps me stay in
the job.
If you receive support in your health promotion role is this beneficial? Q16
‘no’ answers
Difficult to provide variety for the classes and resources seem limited
Do not participate in HP mentoring
I do not formally participate in a mentoring health promotion program
I don’t have specific Hp support
Limited resources
little time for preventative role, huge demand for chronic disease management
Management do not have a good understanding or background in Community Health
no
No because it is disempowering
No one in the organisation to provide the support really
not ENOUGH SUPPORT AND COORDINATION...NO HP OFFICER POSITION...HP IS
PART OF OUR ROLES
Not enough time to address issues fully
not really, would like more formalised assistance with planning/improving programs
Nothing is in place formally for the CEO
Sometimes more structure would be beneficial
we work as sole workers - stretched too thin on the ground
Would like to set up regular monthly supervision & support
Is there anything that can be done to improve the process of providing
support Q17 ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers
We are very limited to what we can do because of lack of resources around
community health including health promotion.
very likely, may need some brainstorm sessions
Variety or practitioners meeting as everyone has individual processes that are good
to find out about and adapt to suit each program/individual needs about teaching
tools/resources
UPDATE ON HP SHORTCOURSE [I DID MY COURSE IN 2001]. OPPORTUNITY TO PICK
UP HP STUDY-FUNDING AND SUPPORT
Time and consultation with management
These processes could be much more promoted and supported within and across
organisations
39
the process could be talked through and clarified more
the nature of the work builds a momentum within communities, always a challenge
to match resources with opportunity
Support from manager is reasonable with room for improvement
Provide external process. I have started a network with other people who are in
similar position to me which is very beneficial.
Others outside my organisation providing membership and support
opportunity for me to see what other services are doing in rural areas
not sure
Not seen as priority
No -May work better if more structured eg more mentoring
needs to be more balanced approach rather than managerial
more time funded to allow this, greater opportunities to training in rural and remote
areas
More time and also additional funding from our organisation
More research available to health professional about health promotion that works in
Australia
More regular contact and involvement by governance group
more frequent and formal
more formal approach
more formal and more regular review of workload management to enable allocation
for planning and evaluation of program
More educational/professional development would improve our knowledge and skills
Mentoring and information made more readily available
Meetings have not been as regular perhaps as needed and set times to accomplish
things in a mentored and facilitated manner.
management participate in HP education
It would be fantastic to have health promotion courses available locally
Increase the funding and staffing. It is near impossible to do health promotion as
sole workers
I would like to engage in formal mentoring support
I have a tension between needing to know hp and management and not enough time
to do much more. We have staff working in our agency who are not HP trained. It
would be good to have training eg the short course in HP but with different delivery
options eg 2 hrs a week for 20 weeks in addition to block mode.
Formal supervision would be useful
Don't have formal supervision as such and would love it!!! Besides the obvious
benefits in the quality of your work it is really valuable to have the interest in your
work.
clearer delineation between what activities can be supported by HP funding
better organisation (& systems) wide understanding of what causes health
inequalities (non-biomedical) and community development practice approaches
Art for Health is growing sector, professional development opportunities could be
explored to support agencies working in this field
apply across the board make it mandatory to all health professionals
An interest group to post questions
Access to other programs in other organisations
No (25 responses)
Wording and grammar has not been adjusted for any of the qualitative data recorded
40
Appendix 4 Health Promotion Workforce Survey
1. Qualifications
Do you work for?
o Community health
o Non government organisation
o Local government
o Hospital
o Community Service
o Other – Please Specify?___________________________________________
Are you based in the Loddon Mallee Region?
o Yes
o No
If yes, which Loddon Mallee PCP area are you located in?
o Northern Mallee
o Southern Mallee
o Campaspe
o Bendigo Loddon
o Central Victorian Health Alliance (incorporating Central Goldfields, Macedon
Ranges and Mt Alexander)
If you are not based in the Loddon Mallee please specify your
region______________
What health promotion responsibilities do you currently undertake? Tick all that
apply.
o Needs assessment
o Program Planning
o Program implementation
o Program evaluation
o Program coordination
o Group facilitation
o Networking
o Health Education
o Health Research (qualitative/quantitative)
o Management
Do you feel that there is an adequate amount of time dedicated to complete these
responsibilities?
o Yes
o No
41
How long have you been in your current position?
o < 1 year
o 1-3 year
o 3-5 years
o 5+ years
What is the nature of your current role? Please tick all that apply
o Part time
o Full time
o Contract/fixed term
o Ongoing
o Other – please specify_____________________________________
What level of study have you undertaken for this role?
o VCE (or equivalent)
o Undergraduate
o Postgraduate
o Other – Please Specify_________________________________________
What was your field of study?
o Health Promotion
o Community development
o Social work
o Nursing
o Allied health-please specify
o Other-please specify______________________________________________
Please provide details of the program/s you are involved in. i.e. Nutrition, Physical
activity, Mental Health etc
Comments:__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2. Professional Support
Do you currently participate in a formal professional support program, e.g.
supervision or mentoring program in health promotion?
o Yes
o No
42
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee? Please tick all that apply
o Supervisor
o Mentor
o Mentee
Who provides you with support in your health promotion role?
o Management
o Other – Please
specify_____________________________________________
If you receive support, how often does this take place?
o Daily
o Weekly
o Fortnightly
o Monthly
o Annually
o Other – Please specify____________________________________________
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?
o Yes – Please explain why
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
o No - Please explain why
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Is there anything that could be done to improve this process?
o Yes – please explain
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
o No
3. Networking
Do you have satisfactory internal networking opportunities?
o Yes
o No
If no, how could this be improved?
Comments:__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
43
Do you network externally?
o Yes
o No
If yes, where? Tick as many as applicable
o Mildura
o Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke
o Campaspe
o Bendigo Loddon
o Central Goldfields, Macedon Ranges, Mt Alexander
o Metropolitan
o State-wide
o Nationally
Do you feel that you would benefit from having more opportunities to network?
o Yes
o No
If yes, which would you be most likely to attend across the Loddon Mallee Region?
o Forums
o Training
o Workshops
o Seminars
o Meet and greet discussion groups
How do you prefer to network?
o Phone calls
o Face to face
o Forums
o Seminars
o Web based
o Other-please specify______________________________________________
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated networking sessions in conjunction
with existing professional development courses/workshops/seminars?
o Yes
o No
44
4. Future Needs and Opportunities
Have you participated in the Department of Human Services’ Health Promotion 5-day
Short Course (HPSC)?
o Yes
o No (if no please skip to page 6)
If yes, what year did this occur in?
o Prior to 2008
o 2008
o 2009 (was there a short course in 2009)?
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5-day Health Promotion Short Course to
your practise?
o Yes-please specify:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
o No
Which parts of the course have you found to be most relevant?
Please specify:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Which parts of the course have you found to be least relevant?
Please specify:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Did you use the 5-day health promotion short course to continue your formal
education in health promotion?
o Yes
o No
If you haven’t previously attended the 5-day Health Promotion Short Course would
you be interested in participating in the future?
o Yes
o No
Do you feel you require further professional development in health promotion
practise?
o Yes – Please specify
45
o No
Which of the following health promotion professional development options have you
participated in previously?
o Health promotion introductory course (1 day)
o Mental health short course
o Indigenous health promotion short course
o Workshops
o Seminars
o Other – please specify
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
What do you feel are your strengths in the area of health promotion?
o Needs assessment
o Program Planning
o Evaluation
o Facilitation
o Implementation
o Research methods
o Education
o Networking
o Other – please specify
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
How could you further develop your skills in Health Promotion?
o Needs assessment
o Program Planning
o Advocacy
o Management/Leadership
o Report writing
o Policy
o Evaluation
o Facilitation
o Implementation
o Education
o Research methods
o Networking
o Conference presentation
o Other – please specify
46
Which out of the following do you believe would be most effective in order to further
develop your skills? (Please select as many as appropriate)
o Mentoring/Supervision
o Management/Leadership
o Professional development opportunities (internally)
o Management with increased knowledge and skills regarding health promotion
o Workshops
o Networking
o Seminars
o Health promotion short course (4-5 days)
o Health promotion introductory course (1 day)
o Stronger professional relationships
o Tertiary or TAFE qualification
o DHS support – please explain
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
o PCP support: please explain
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
What do you feel are the barriers to participating in health promotion professional
development events?
o Time
o Distance
o Cost
o Other: Please specify
Thank-you for taking the time to participate in this survey.
47
Appendix 5 Southern Mallee PCP Area Survey Results
Southern Mallee PCP area
Workforce Characteristics
Twenty-eight health promotion staff indicated they worked in the Southern Mallee
PCP area. Ten of these worked in areas other than the Southern Mallee.
The organisations that participants worked for was similar to those seen for the
region as a whole with most (n=12; 42.9%) working for community health
organisations. Seventeen (60.7%) participants had been in their current position for
five years or less. This result is similar to the region as a whole (65.9%). Slightly
more participants in the Sothern Mallee were full time (n=16; 59.3%) than in the
entire LMR (47.4%). Twenty-two (78.6%) participants have either undergraduate or
postgraduate qualifications with a quarter (n=7) indicating their field of study as
health promotion (Table 14). This is slightly higher than found in the LMR region
overall, where it was just over seventeen percent.
Health promotion responsibilities
Most health promotion workers were responsible for a broad range of HP activities
particularly program planning and coordination (Table 15). Participants were
involved in a broad range of programs, the most frequently mentioned were mental
health and physical activity (both n=12). Other programs included diabetes,
nutrition, cardiac health, sexual health, asthma, women’s health, adolescent health,
children and early years, chronic disease, communicable disease, violence
prevention, GP engagement, counselling, family services, strengthening rural
communities, food security and programs for the aged. Half of the participants
indicated they had time to complete their tasks (n=13).
48
Table 14 SMPCP Workforce Characteristics
Number (%)
Who do you work for* Community health 12(42.9)
Hospital 5 (17.9)
Non-government organisation 5 (17.9)
Local Government 3 (10.7)
Community service organisation 3 (10.7)
PCP 1 (3.7)
State government 1(3.7)
Other PCP areas HP workers are located*
Bendigo Loddon 6 (21.4)
Central Victorian Health Alliance 2 (7.4)
Northern Mallee 5 (17.9)
Campaspe 2 (7.4)
Time in current position < 1 year 6 (21.4)
1-3 years 7 (25.0)
3-5 years 5 (17.9)
More than 5 years 10 (35.7)
What is the nature of your role* Part time 8 (29.6)
Full time 16 (59.3)
Contract/fixed 4 (14.8)
Ongoing 3 (11.1)
Skipped question 1
Highest level of education VCE 3 (11.1)
(or equivalent) Diploma/Certificate 1 (3.7)
Undergraduate 10 (37.0)
Postgraduate 12 (44.4)
SACS management 1 (3.7)
Skipped question 1
Field of study* Health Promotion 7 (25.0)
Community development 7 (25.0)
Nursing 6 (21.4)
Social work 1 (3.6)
Allied Health 4 (14.3)
Other (Public health; welfare) 3 (11.1)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Table 15 SMPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities
Health promotion responsibilities*
Program Planning 23 (82.1)
Program Coordination 23 (82.1)
Networking 21 (75.0)
Program implementation 20 (71.4)
Program Evaluation 20 (71.4)
Needs Assessment 18 (64.3)
Health Education 16 (57.1)
Group facilitation 16 (57.1)
Management 13 (46.4)
Health Research 6 (21.4)
Do you have adequate time to complete these
tasks? No 13 (50.0)
Yes 13 (50.0)
Skipped question 2
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
49
Professional support and networking
Five participants (20.8%) were involved in a professional support program and most
(n=18; 81.8%) relied on management for support. This support varied in frequency
with most participants finding it a beneficial process (n=19; 79.2%). 59.1% (n=13)
believed it could be improved (Table 16). Ideas for improved support included
making support programs a more structured/formal process with more regular
contact, providing more research on what works, more training and more time and
an increase in funding and staff.
Table 16 SMPCP Professional Support
Number (Valid %)
Do you participate in a formal support program?
No 19 (79.2)
Yes 5 (20.8)
Skipped question 4
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee?*
Supervisor 7 (63.6)
Mentor 3 (27.2)
Mentee 3 (27.2)
Skipped question 17
Who provides you with support in your health
promotion role?*
Management 18 (81.8)
Others – (PCPs; Peers; External agencies; 7 (31.8)
supervisors; none)
Skipped question 6
If you receive support how often? *
Daily 3 (15.0)
Weekly 5 (25.0)
Fortnightly 4 (20.0)
Monthly 3 (15.0)
Annually 0
Other –(every 2-3 months; as required; 6 (30.0)
infrequently)
Skipped question 8
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?
No 5 (20.8)
Yes 19 (79.2)
Skipped question 4
Is there anything that could be done to improve
this process? No 9 (40.9)
Yes 13 (59.1)
Skipped question 6
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Southern Mallee HP workers indicated they had satisfactory internal and networking
opportunities yet nineteen (82.6%) believed they would benefit from more (Table
17). Health promotion workers were most likely to attend training programs (n=17;
50
81.0%) and as with the region as a whole, most preferred to network face to face
(n=20; 83.3%). Twenty-three participants (95.8%) indicated they would benefit
from facilitated networking sessions held in conjunction with existing professional
development programs.
Table 17 SMPCP Networking Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Do you have satisfactory internal networking
opportunities? No 5 (21.7)
Yes 18 (78.3)
Skipped question 5
Do you network externally? No 1 (4.2)
Yes 23 (95.8)
Skipped question 4
If yes where do you network?*
Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke 21 (91.3)
State-wide 15 (65.2)
Bendigo Loddon 13 (56.5)
Mildura 10 (43.5)
Metropolitan 8 (34.8)
Campaspe 7 (30.4)
Central Goldfields 5 (21.7)
Nationally 4 (17.4)
Skipped question 5
Do you feel you would benefit from more
opportunities to network? No 4 (17.4)
Yes 19 (82.6)
Skipped question 5
If yes, what would you be most likely to attend across
the Loddon Mallee Region?*
Training 17 (81.0)
Workshops 14 (66.7)
Forums 13 (61.9)
Seminars 12 (57.1)
Meet and greet discussion groups 10 (47.6)
Skipped question 7
How do you prefer to network?*
Face to face 20 (83.3)
Forums 14 (58.3)
Seminars 11 (45.8)
Web based 8 (33.3)
Phone calls 6 (25.0)
Skipped question 4
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated
network sessions in conjunction with existing
professional development courses/seminars etc?
No 1 (4.2)
Yes 23 (95.8)
Skipped question 4
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Future needs and opportunities
51
Only three participants (12.5%) had undertaken the HPSC (Table 18), all of whom
indicated that they had applied it in their HP activities. One had used it to continue
with their formal education. Of those who had not done the course twelve (63.2%)
indicated they would be interested in completing it in the future. Sixteen
participants (69.6%) felt they required further HP professional development. A
number indicated that general updates would be useful as it was a continuously
changing field. Others indicated they had little HP training so anything would be
useful. Some specific areas mentioned included practice evidence, ethics, research
writing, community engagement and a greater understanding of welfare and working
with the disadvantaged.
Table 18 SMPCP Future Needs and Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Have you participated in the DHS 5-day Health
Promotion Short course (HPSC)?
No 21 (87.5)
Yes(all prior to 2008) 3 (12.5)
Skipped question 4
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5 day HP
Short Course to your practice?
No 0
Yes 3 (100.0)
Did you use the 5-day Health Promotion Short Course
to continue your formal education in health promotion?
No 2 (66.6)
Yes 1 (33.3)
If you haven’t previously done the 5-day HPSC would
you be interested in participating in the future?
No 7 (36.8)
Yes 12 (63.2)
Skipped question 7
Do you feel you require further professional
development in health promotion practice?
No 7 (30.4)
Yes 16 (69.6)
Skipped question 5
Which of the following health promotion development
options have you participated previously?*
Workshops 14 (70.0)
Seminars 11 (55.0)
Mental health short course 7 (35.0)
Health promotion introductory course (1 day) 3 (15.0)
Indigenous health promotion short course 1 (5.0)
Other 2 (10.0)
Skipped question 8
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
52
Health promotion strengths
Participants were then asked where their health promotion strengths lay. Most
participants indicated strengths in networking (n=16; 69.6), program planning
(n=15; 65.2%) and facilitation (n=14; 60.9%). Eleven participants indicated having
skills in the area of implementation (47.8%), nine in education (39.1%) and eight in
the area of evaluation (34.8%). Only three workers (13.0%) indicated having skills
in needs assessments and two in research methods (8.7%). Participants identified a
number of areas where they felt their skills could be further developed. At the top of
the list were needs assessments, report writing and program planning (Table 19).
Table 19 SMPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs
Number (Valid %)
What are your strengths in the area of health
promotion?*
Networking 16 (69.6)
Program planning 15 (65.2)
Facilitation 14 (60.9)
Implementation 11 (47.8)
Education 9 (39.1)
Evaluation 8 (34.8)
Needs Assessment 3 (13.0)
Research methods 2 (8.7)
Other 1 (4.3)
Skipped question 5
How could you further develop your skills in
Health Promotion?*
Needs Assessment 13 (54.2)
Report writing 12 (50.0)
Program planning 11 (45.8)
Evaluation 10 (41.7)
Policy 10 (41.7)
Management and leadership 10 (41.7)
Research Methods 9 (37.5)
Conference presentation 9 (37.5)
Advocacy 8 (33.3)
Networking 5 (20.8)
Facilitation 2 (8.3)
Education 2 (8.3)
Implementation 1 (4.8)
Other 2 (8.3)
Skipped Question 4
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
53
The preferred methods for developing HP skills were internal professional
development opportunities (n= 13; 54.2%) followed by workshops (n=11; 52.9%),
networking (n=11; 52.9%) and management/leadership (n=11; 52.9%), (Table 20).
Table 20 SMPCP Respondents preferred method to developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
Which of the following will be most effective in
further developing your skills?*
Professional development-internally 13 (54.2)
Workshops 11 (45.8)
Networking 11 (45.8)
Management/leadership 11 (45.8)
HP Short Course (5-day) 8 (33.3)
Mentoring/Supervision 8 (33.3)
Stronger professional relationships 8 (33.3)
Seminars 7 (29.2)
Tertiary or TAFE qualification 6 (25.0)
Management with increased knowledge/skills of HP 6 (25.0)
HP Introductory course (1 day) 4 (16.7)
DHS support 1 (4.2)
PCP support 1 (4.2)
Skipped question 4
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
More than 90% of participants identified time and distance (n=21; 91.3%) as
barriers to participating in HP events. Cost was identified by seventeen participants
(73.9%) as a barrier (Table 21).
Table 21 SMPCP Barriers to developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
What do you feel are the barriers to
participating in health promotion development
events?*
Time 21 (91.3)
Distance 21 (91.3)
Cost 17 (73.9)
Childcare/Being part time/Already many events 3
Skipped question 5
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
54
SMPCP Recommendations
Recommendation 1
As per Regional Recommendation #7; The CBSC should offer a Health Promotion
Short Course in 2010.
Recommendation 2
To hold a workshop that focuses on increasing participants knowledge in the areas of
needs assessment, report writing, program planning and evaluation with the
opportunity for participants to network face to face.
Recommendation 3
HP Managers support staff attendance at professional development events,
acknowledge new information gained and provide opportunities for HP workers to
implement their learning’s in daily practice.
55
Appendix 6 Northern Mallee PCP Area Survey Results
Northern Mallee PCP area
Workforce Characteristics
Twenty-four health promotion staff indicated they worked in the Northern Mallee PCP
area. Six of these worked in areas other than the Northern Mallee (Table 22).
Participants worked for a variety of organisations as seen in Table 22. Seventeen
participants (70.9%) had been in their current position for three years or less. This
is a larger percentage than the region as a whole where just over half the workforce
(52.5%) had been in their roles for three years or less. Slightly more participants in
the Northern Mallee were full time (n=14; 60.9%) than in the entire LMR (47.4%).
Seventeen participants (70.8%) indicated they had either undergraduate or
postgraduate qualifications. Only three participants (12.5%) indicated health
promotion as their field of study. This is slightly lower than found in the LMR region
overall, where it was just over seventeen percent.
Health promotion responsibilities
Most health promotion workers were responsible for a broad range of HP activities
particularly in program planning, implementation and networking (Table 24).
Participants were involved in a broad range of programs. The most frequently
mentioned programs were mental health (n=11; 45.8%), physical activity (n=7;
29.2%) and nutrition (n=6; 25.0%). Other programs included diabetes, cardiac
health, sexual health, asthma, women’s health, adolescent health, chronic disease,
communicable disease, violence prevention, drug and alcohol, family services, and
programs for the aged. Half of the participants indicated they had time to complete
their tasks (n=12).
56
Table 22 NMPCP Workforce Characteristics
Number (%)
Who do you work for*
Community health 9 (37.5)
Non-government organisation 5 (20.8)
Local Government 5 (20.8)
Hospital 3 (12.5)
Community service organisation 3 (12.5)
State government 2 (8.3)
Other PCP areas HP workers are located*
Southern Mallee 5 (20.8)
Bendigo Loddon 2 (8.3)
Central Victorian Health Alliance 2 (8.3)
Campaspe 2 (8.3)
Time in current position < 1 year 7 (29.2)
1-3 years 10 (41.7)
3-5 years 2 (8.3)
More than 5 years 5 (20.8)
What is the nature of your role*
Part time 5 (21.7)
Full time 14 (60.9)
Contract/fixed 3 (13.0)
Ongoing 3 (13.0)
Skipped question 1
Highest level of education VCE (or equivalent) 3 (12.5)
Diploma/Certificate 3 (12.5)
Undergraduate 5 (20.8)
Postgraduate 12 (50.0)
SACS management 1 (4.2)
Field of study* Nursing 7 (29.2)
Allied Health 7 (29.2)
Social work 5 (20.8)
Community development 4 (16.7)
Health Promotion 3 (12.5)
Other (Public health; Psych; Business) 4 (21.7)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Table 23 NMPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities
Number (Valid %)
*
Health promotion responsibilities
Program Planning 21 (87.5)
Program implementation 17 (70.8)
Networking 17 (70.8)
Program Evaluation 14 (58.3)
Program Coordination 14 (58.3)
Health Education 12 (50)
Needs Assessment 10 (41.7)
Group facilitation 10 (14.7)
Management 9 (37.5)
Health Research 1 (4.2)
Do you have adequate time to complete these
tasks? No 12 (50.0)
Yes 12 (50.0)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
57
Professional support and networking
Three participants (16.7%) were involved in a professional support program and
most (n=11; 61.1%) relied on management for support. This support varied in
frequency and most participants found it a beneficial process (n=16; 88.2%). 64.3%
(n=9) believed this process could be improved (n=9; 64.3%). Ideas for
improvement included making mentoring and information readily available, ensuring
support programs are more formal or mandatory, providing more training, more
funding and more time.
Table 24 NMPCP Professional Support
Number (Valid %)
Do you participate in a formal support program?
No 15 (83.3)
Yes 3 (16.7)
Skipped question 6
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee?*
Supervisor 5 (62.5)
Mentor 2 (25.0)
Mentee 3 (37.5)
Skipped question 16
Who provides you with support in your health promotion
role?*
Management 11 (61.1)
Others – (PCPs; co-workers; peers; External agencies) 7 (38.9)
Skipped question 6
If you receive support how often? *
Daily 1 (8.3)
Weekly 1 (8.3)
Fortnightly 4 (33.3)
Monthly 4 (33.3)
Annually 0
Other –(every 2-3 months; intermittently) 2 (16.7)
Skipped question 12
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?*
No 4 (22.2)
Yes 16 (88.2)
Skipped question 6
Is there anything that could be done to improve this
process?
No 5 (35.7)
Yes 9 (64.3)
Skipped question 10
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Northern Mallee HP workers indicated they had satisfactory internal networking
opportunities (n=18; 100.0%) and 17 (94.4%) networked externally. Most (n=16;
94.1%) believed that they would benefit from more networking opportunities (Table
25).
58
Health promotion workers were most likely to attend training programs (n=13;
76.5%), workshops (n=13; 76.5%) and forums (n=12; 70.6%). As with the region
as a whole most preferred to network face to face (n=17; 94.4%). Eighteen
respondents (100.0%) indicated they would benefit from facilitated networking
sessions held in conjunction with existing professional development programs.
Table 25 NMPCP Networking Opportunities
Number (Valid
%)
Do you have satisfactory internal networking
opportunities? No 0
Yes 18 (100.0)
Skipped question 6
Do you network externally?
No 1 (5.6)
Yes 17 (94.4)
Skipped question 6
If yes where do you network?*
Mildura 15 (88.2)
Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke 13 (76.5)
Bendigo Loddon 9 (52.9)
State-wide 9 (52.9)
Campaspe 4 (23.5)
Metropolitan 3 (17.6)
Central Goldfields 3 (17.6)
Nationally 3 (17.6)
Skipped question 7
Do you feel you would benefit from more opportunities to
network? No 1 (5.6)
Yes 16 (94.1)
Skipped question 7
If yes, what would you be most likely to attend across the
Loddon Mallee Region?*
Training 13 (76.5)
Workshops 13 (76.5)
Forums 12 (70.6)
Seminars 11 (64.7)
Meet and greet discussion groups 7 (41.2)
Skipped question 7
How do you prefer to network?*
Face to face 17 (94.4)
Forums 9 (50.0)
Web based 5 (27.8)
Seminars 4 (22.2)
Phone calls 1 (5.6)
Skipped question 6
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated network
sessions in conjunction with existing professional
development courses/seminars etc?
No 0
Yes 18 (100.0)
Skipped question 6
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
59
Future needs and opportunities
Only two participants (11.8%) had undertaken the HPSC (Table 26) both of whom
indicated that they had applied it in their HP activities. Neither had used it to
continue with their formal education. Of those who had not completed the course
ten (62.5%) indicated they would be interested in completing it in the future.
Thirteen participants (68.4%) felt they required further HP professional
development. Most indicated that further development is always useful. Some
specific areas mentioned included practice evidence, needs analysis, evaluation and
community consultation.
Table 26 NMPCP Future Needs and Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Have you participated in the DHS 5-day Health
Promotion Short course (HPSC)?
No 16 (88.9)
Yes (all prior to 2008) 2 (11.8)
Skipped question 6
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5 day HP
short course to your practice?
No 0
Yes 2 (100.0)
Did you use the 5-day HPSC to continue your formal
education in health promotion?
No 2 (100.0)
If you haven’t previously done the 5-day HP short
course would you be interested in participating in the
future?
No 6 (37.5)
Yes 10 (62.5)
Skipped question 8
Do you feel you require further professional
development in health promotion practice?
No 6 (31.6)
Yes 13 (68.4)
Skipped question 5
Which of the following health promotion development
options have you participated previously?*
Workshops 9 (64.3)
Seminars 9 (64.3)
Mental health short course 7 (50.0)
Health promotion introductory course (1 day) 3 (21.4)
Indigenous health promotion short course 2 (14.3)
None 1 (7.1)
Skipped question 10
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
60
Participants were then asked where their health promotion strengths lay. Most
participants indicated strengths in networking (n=13; 76.5%) and program planning
(n=11; 64.7%). Five participants (29.4%) indicated having skills in the area of
needs assessments and evaluation. No workers in the Northern Mallee area felt they
had skills in research methods. Participants identified a number of areas where they
felt their skills could be further developed. At the top of the list were evaluation
(n=13; 76.5%), program planning (n=11; 64.7%) and needs assessments (n=9;
52.9%) (Table 27).
Table 27 NMPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs
Number (Valid %)
What are your strengths in the area of health
promotion?*
Networking 13 (76.5)
Program planning 11 (64.7)
Facilitation 9 (52.9)
Education 8 (47.1)
Implementation 7 (41.2)
Evaluation 5 (29.4)
Needs Assessment 5 (29.4)
Research methods 0
Other (Community engagement) 1 (5.9)
Skipped question 7
How could you further develop your skills in Health
Promotion?*
Evaluation 13 (76.5)
Program planning 11 (64.7)
Needs Assessment 9 (52.9)
Report writing 8 (47.1)
Management and leadership 8 (47.1)
Networking 7 (41.2)
Conference presentation 7 (41.2)
Research Methods 6 (35.3)
Advocacy 6 (35.3)
Facilitation 6 (35.3)
Policy 5 (29.4)
Education 4 (23.5)
Implementation 4 (23.5)
Skipped question 7
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
61
Preferred methods for developing HP skills were internal professional development
opportunities (n= 13; 72.2%) followed by workshops (n=12; 66.7%), networking
(n=10; 55.6%) and stronger professional relationships (n=10; 55.6%), (Table 28).
Table 28 NMPCP Respondents preferred method for developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
Which of the following will be most effective in further
developing your skills?*
Professional development opportunities-internally 13 (72.2)
Workshops 12 (66.7)
Networking 10 (55.6)
Stronger professional relationships 10 (55.6)
Seminars 9 (50.0)
HP Introductory course (1 day) 8 (44.4)
Management with increased knowledge/skills of HP 8 (44.4)
Mentoring/Supervision 8 (44.4)
HP Short Course (5-day) 7 (38.9)
Management/leadership 6 (33.3)
Tertiary or TAFE qualification 5 (27.8)
DHS support 3 (16.7)
PCP support 3 (16.7)
Skipped question 6
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Distance, time and cost were all identified as barriers to participating in health
promotion events, (Table 29).
Table 29 NMPCP Barriers to developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
What do you feel are the barriers to participating in
health promotion development events?*
Distance 17 (94.4)
Time 16 (88.9)
Cost 15 (83.3)
Non-supportive environment 1 (5.6)
Skipped question 6
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
62
Northern Mallee PCP Recommendations
Recommendation 1
As per Regional Recommendation #7; The CBSC should offer a Health Promotion
Short Course in 2010.
Recommendation 2
Workshop sessions are developed with a focus on Needs Assessment, Evaluation and
Program planning and provide an opportunity for HP workers to network face to face.
Recommendation 3
As per Regional Recommendation #3; Workshop sessions be implemented for the
HPW with a focus on:
1. Needs Assessment
2. Report Writing
3. Evaluation.
Recommendation 4
Further advocate for the provision of more local professional development
opportunities to reduce the distance HP workers in the NMPCP are required to travel.
Recommendation 5
As per Regional Recommendation #2; HP Managers should provide HP workers with
relevant internal professional development opportunities that are facilitated by
suitably qualified persons.
Recommendation 6
As per Regional Recommendation #12; HP Managers provide support to staff
through the provision of more formal and structured mentoring and supervision
processes.
63
Appendix 7 Bendigo Loddon PCP Area Survey Results
Bendigo Loddon PCP
Workforce Characteristics
One agency within the Bendigo Loddon region missed the cut-off period for
completing the on-line survey. Hard copies of the survey were forwarded and a
further six responses were received. These have been included in this report but
were unable to be included in the main Loddon Mallee Region report. The total
number of respondents for the Bendigo Loddon PCP area was twenty three.
More than two-thirds of the participants (n=16; 69.6) from the Bendigo Loddon PCP
area work for community health organisations with a further 17.4% (n=4) working
for acute health services. Seven of the twenty three participants work in other PCP
areas besides the Bendigo Loddon. Eleven participants (47.8%) have been in their
current role for more than five years. The workforce is highly educated with 16
(69.6%) respondents having post graduate qualifications, but only four (17.4%)
identifying health promotion as their field of study (Table 30). Most health
promotion workers identified their field of study as nursing (n=11; 47.8%).
Health promotion responsibilities
Most health promotion workers were responsible for a broad range of HP activities
particularly in program planning, implementation, evaluation and coordination (Table
31). Participants were involved in a broad range of programs. The most frequently
mentioned program was mental health (n=6). Other programs included diabetes,
cardiac health, sexual health, alcohol and drugs, asthma, women’s health,
adolescent health, children and early years, chronic disease, communicable disease,
violence prevention, sustainable farming families and programs for the aged,
smoking cessation and exercise and nutrition. Only seven (30.4%) participants
indicated they had adequate time to complete their tasks.
64
Table 30 BLPCP Workforce Characteristics
Number (%)
Who do you work for*
Community health 16 (69.6)
Hospital 4 (17.4)
Non-government organisation 1 (4.3)
Local Government 2 (8.7)
Community service organisation 2 (8.7)
Other PCP areas HP workers are located*
Southern Mallee 7 (30.4)
Central Victorian Health Alliance 3 (13.0)
Northern Mallee 3 (13.0)
Campaspe 3 (13.0)
Time in current position
< 1 year 4 (17.4)
1-3 years 2 (8.7)
3-5 years 6 (26.1)
More than 5 years 11 (47.8)
What is the nature of your role*
Part time 11 (47.8)
Full time 11 (47.8)
Contract/fixed 1 (4.3)
Ongoing 1 (4.3)
Highest level of education VCE (or equivalent) 0
Diploma/Certificate 1 (4.3)
Undergraduate 5 (21.7)
Postgraduate 16 (69.6)
SACS management 1 (4.3)
Field of study* Nursing 11 (47.8)
Community development 3 (13.0)
Social work 3 (13.0)
Health Promotion 4 (17.4)
Allied Health 1 (5.9)
Public health 2 (8.6)
Other 6 (26.1)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Table 31 BLPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities
Number (%)
*
Health promotion responsibilities
Program Planning 21 (91.3)
Program Evaluation 21 (91.3)
Program implementation 19 (82.6)
Program Coordination 19 (82.6)
Health Education 18 (78.3)
Group facilitation 17 (73.9)
Networking 16 (69.6)
Needs Assessment 16 (69.6)
Management 9 (39.1)
Health Research 5 (21.7)
Do you have adequate time to complete these tasks?
No 16 (69.6)
Yes 7 (30.4)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
65
Professional support
Eight participants (34.8%) were involved in a professional support program and most
(n=18; 85.7%) relied on management for support (Table 32). This support varied in
frequency and most participants found it a beneficial process (n=18; 78.3%). 55%
(n=11) believed it could be improved. Ideas for improved support included making
it a more formal process, providing more research on what works, more training and
more time.
Table 32 BLPCP Professional Support
Number (Valid %)
Do you participate in a formal support program?
No 15 (65.2)
Yes 8 (34.8)
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee?*
Supervisor 8 (53.3)
Mentor 5 (33.3)
Mentee 4 (26.7)
Skipped question 8
Who provides you with support in your health
promotion role?*
Management 18 (85.7)
Others – (PCPs, Peers, External agencies, supervisors) 7 (33.3)
Skipped question 2
If you receive support how often?
Daily 2 (9.5)
Weekly 5 (23.8)
Fortnightly 4 (19.0)
Monthly 4 (19.0)
Annually 1 (4.8)
Other –(No support/as required/infrequently) 6 (40.0)
Skipped question 1
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?*
No 6 (26.1)
Yes 18 (78.3)
*
Some participants answered both yes and no
Is there anything that could be done to improve this
process?
No 9 (45.0)
Yes 11 (55.0)
Skipped question 3
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
66
Networking
Bendigo Loddon HP workers indicated they had satisfactory internal networking
opportunities but twenty one (91.3%) believed they would benefit from more (Table
33). Health promotion workers were most likely to attend training programs (71.4%)
and forums (71.4%) and most preferred to network face to face (n=18; 78.3%). All
twenty-three participants indicated they would benefit from facilitated networking
sessions held in conjunction with existing professional development programs.
Table 33 BLPCP Networking Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Do you have satisfactory internal networking opportunities?
No 4 (17.4)
Yes 19 (82.6)
Do you network externally?
No 0
Yes 23 (100)
If yes where do you network?*
Bendigo Loddon 22 (95.7)
Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke 12 (52.2)
Metropolitan 10 (43.5)
State-wide 9 (39.1)
Central Goldfields 8 (34.8)
Mildura 6 (26.1)
Campaspe 6 (26.1)
Nationally 5 (21.7)
Do you feel you would benefit from more opportunities to
network?
No 2 (8.7)
Yes 21 (91.3)
If yes, what would you be most likely to attend across the
Loddon Mallee Region?*
Training 15 (71.4)
Forums 15 (71.4)
Workshops 14 (66.7)
Seminars 13 (61.9)
Meet and greet discussion groups 5 (23.8)
Skipped question 2
How do you prefer to network?*
Face to face 18 (78.3)
Forums 14 (60.9)
Seminars 9 (39.1)
Web based 8 (34.1)
Phone calls 4 (17.4)
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated network
sessions in conjunction with existing professional
development courses/seminars etc?
No 0
Yes 23 (100)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
67
Future needs and opportunities
Eleven participants (47.8%) had undertaken the HPSC (Table 34). Ten (90.9%) of
these indicated that they had applied it in their HP activities and three (27.3%) had
used it to continue with their formal education. Of the twelve who indicated they
had not done the course, nine (75.0%) indicated they would be interested in
completing it in the future. Twelve participants (60.0%) felt they required further HP
professional development. A number indicated that general updates would be useful
whilst some specific areas mentioned included practice evidence, community
engagement, public speaking and media usage.
Table 34 BLPCP Future Needs and Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Have you participated in the DHS 5-day Health Promotion
Short course (HPSC)? No 12 (52.2)
Yes(all prior to 2008) 11 (47.8)
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5 day HP short
course to your practice?
No 1 (9.1)
Yes 10 (90.9)
Did you use the 5-day HPSC to continue your formal
education in health promotion?
No 8 (72.7)
Yes 3 (27.3)
If you haven’t previously done the 5-day HP short course
would you be interested in participating in the future?
No 3 (25.0)
Yes 9 (75.0)
Skipped question 1
(one participant indicated yes and no)
Do you feel you require further professional development
in health promotion practice?
No 8 (40.0)
Yes 12 (60)
Skipped question 3
Which of the following health promotion development
options have you participated previously?*
Seminars 12 (63.2)
Workshops 12 (63.2)
Mental health short course 8 (42.1)
Health promotion introductory course (1 day) 1 (5.3)
Indigenous health promotion short course 0
Skipped question 4
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
68
Health promotion strengths and needs
Participants were then asked where their health promotion strengths lay. Most
participants indicated strengths in facilitation (n=16; 72.7%), networking (n=16;
72.7%), education (n=14; 63.6%), program planning (n=12; 54.5%) and
implementation (n=12; 54.5%). Ten participants indicated having skills in the area
of needs assessment (45.5%) and seven had skills in evaluation (31.8%). Only one
worker indicated having research methods (4.5%) and only one indicated community
engagement (4.5%). Participants identified a number of areas where they felt their
skills could be furthered developed. At the top of the list were evaluation, report
writing, needs assessments and policy (Table 35).
Table 35 BLPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs
Number (Valid %)
What are your strengths in the area of health
promotion?*
Facilitation 16 (72.7)
Networking 16 (72.7)
Education 14 (63.6)
Program planning 12 (54.5)
Implementation 12 (54.5)
Needs Assessment 10 (45.5)
Evaluation 7 (31.8)
Research methods 1 (4.5)
Community engagement 1 (4.5)
Skipped question 1
How could you further develop your skills in Health
Promotion?*
Evaluation 12 (54.5)
Report writing 12 (54.5)
Needs Assessment 11 (50.0)
Policy 11 (50.0)
Program planning 9 (40.9)
Conference presentation 9 (40.9)
Management and leadership 9 (40.9)
Research Methods 8 (36.4)
Advocacy 8 (36.4)
Facilitation 3 (13.6)
Networking 3 (13.6)
Implementation 2 (9.1)
Education 2 (9.1)
Skipped question 1
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
69
Preferred methods for developing HP skills were internal professional development
opportunities (n=12; 54.5%), and workshops (n=11; 50.0%), (Table 36). Time
(n=18; 85.7%), cost (n=15; 71.4%) and distance (n=13; 61.9%) were all identified
as barriers to participation in future HP events.
Table 36 BLPCP Respondents preferred method and barriers to developing
HP skills
Number (Valid %)
Which of the following will be most effective in further
developing your skills?*
Professional development opportunities-internally 12 (54.5)
Workshops 11 (50.0)
Mentoring/Supervision 10 (45.5)
Management with increased knowledge/skills of HP 9 (40.9)
Management/leadership 9 ( 40.9)
Stronger professional relationships 8 (36.4)
Seminars 7 ( 31.8)
Networking 6 (27.3)
HP Short Course (5-day) 5 (22.7)
Tertiary or TAFE qualification 5 (22.7)
DHS support 4 (18.2)
PCP support 4 (18.2)
HP Introductory course (1 day) 3 (13.6)
Skipped question 1
What do you feel are the barriers to participating in
health promotion development events?*
Time 18 (85.7)
Cost 15 (71.4)
Distance 13 (61.9)
Childcare/Being part time/not a priority 3
Skipped question 2
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
70
Bendigo Loddon PCP Recommendations
Recommendation 1
As per Regional Recommendation #7; The CBSC should offer a Health Promotion
Short Course in 2010.
Recommendation 2
To hold a workshop that focuses on increasing participant’s knowledge in the areas
of Needs Assessment, Report Writing, Evaluation and Policy with the opportunity for
participants to network face to face.
Recommendation 3
As per Regional Recommendation #6; Professional development workshops, forums
and seminars incorporate networking opportunities, including a facilitated networking
component.
Recommendation 4
Professional development opportunities are established for the Health Promotion
Workforce to develop their ‘Project Management’ skills.
Recommendation 5
Organisations further investigate the need for more formal support structures and
internal professional development and networking processes for HP workers
71
Appendix 8 Central Victorian Health Alliance Survey Results
Central Victorian Health Alliance
Workforce Characteristics
Twenty-six health promotion staff indicated they worked in the Central Victorian
Health Alliance (CVHA) PCP area. Three of these worked in areas other than the
CVHA (Table 37). A greater proportion of participants worked for community health
organisations (n=16; 61.5%) compared to the LMR region as a whole (42.9%).
Fourteen participants (58.3%) had been in their current position for more than five
years, which again is higher proportion than found in the region as a whole (34%).
More than half of CVHA HP workers worked part time (n=14; 58%). Twenty
participants (76.9%) indicated they had either undergraduate or postgraduate
qualifications with four (15.4%) indicating their field of study as health promotion.
This is slightly lower than found in the LMR region overall, where just over seventeen
percent of participants indicated health promotion as their field of study.
Health promotion responsibilities
Most health promotion workers were responsible for a broad range of HP activities
particularly in program planning and coordination (Table 38). Participants were
involved in a wide range of programs covering chronic disease, youth health,
women’s health, sexual health, family violence, alcohol and drugs, nutrition, frail
aged, Quit and asthma programs. The most frequently mentioned programs were
physical activity (n=15) and mental health (n=7). Fifty-two percent of the
participants indicated they had time to complete their tasks (n=13).
72
Table 37 CVHA Workforce Characteristics
Number (%)
Who do you work for*
Community health 16 (61.5)
Community service organisation 5 (19.2)
Hospital 3 (11.5)
Non-government organisation 1 (3.8)
Local Government 1 (3.8)
PCP 1 (3.8)
State government 1 (3.8)
Other PCP areas HP workers are located*
Bendigo Loddon 3 (11.5)
Southern Mallee 3 (11.5)
Northern Mallee 3 (11.5)
Campaspe 3 (11.5)
Time in current position < 1 year 5 (19.2)
1-3 years 4 (15.3)
3-5 years 3 (11.5)
More than 5 years 14 (58.3)
What is the nature of your role* Part time 14 (58.3)
Full time 8 (33.3)
Contract/fixed 2 (8.3)
Ongoing 4 (16.7)
Skipped question 1
Highest level of education VCE (or equivalent) 2 (7.7)
Diploma/Certificate 3 (11.5)
Undergraduate 7 (26.9)
Postgraduate 13 (50.0)
SACS management 1 (3.4)
Field of study* Social work 7 (26.9)
Nursing 6 (23.1)
Allied Health 5 (19.2)
Health Promotion 4 (15.4)
Community development 3 (11.5)
Other (Public health; disability; education) 7 (26.9)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Table 38 CVHA Health Promotion Responsibilities
Health promotion responsibilities*
Program Planning 18 (69.2)
Program Evaluation 18 (69.2)
Program Coordination 16 (61.5)
Program implementation 15 (57.7)
Group facilitation 15 (57.7)
Networking 14 (53.8)
Health Education 14 (53.8)
Needs Assessment 13 (50.0)
Management 11 (42.3)
Health Research 3 (11.5)
Other 5 (19.5)
Do you have adequate time to complete these tasks?
No 12 (48.0)
Yes 13 (52.0)
Skipped question 1
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
73
Professional support and networking
Eight participants (34.7%) were involved in a professional support program and as
with the other regions most (n=14; 73.7%) relied on management for support. This
support varied in frequency and most participants found it a beneficial process
(n=15; 61.5%). 53.3% (n=8) believed it could be improved. (Table 39). Ideas for
improving the process included more organisational support for these programs,
more involvement from management, more regular meetings, inter-organisational
sharing of programs and a better understanding of the causes of health inequalities.
Table 39 CVHA Professional Support
Number (Valid %)
Do you participate in a formal support program?
No 15 (65.2)
Yes 8 (34.7)
Skipped question 3
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee?*
Supervisor 9 (69.2)
Mentor 3 (23.1)
Mentee 4 (30.8)
Skipped question 13
Who provides you with support in your health
promotion role?*
Management 14 (73.7)
Others – (PCPs; Peers; External agencies; HP officer) 9 (47.4)
Skipped question 7
If you receive support how often? *
Daily 1 (6.3)
Weekly 2 (12.5)
Fortnightly 3 (18.8)
Monthly 7 (43.8)
Annually 0
Other –(every 3-4months; as required) 6 (37.5)
Skipped question
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?
No 6 (26.9)
Yes 15 (61.5)
Skipped question 3
Is there anything that could be done to improve this
process?
No 7 (46.7)
Yes 8 (53.3)
Skipped question 11
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
CVHA health promotion workers indicated they had satisfactory internal and external
networking opportunities (n=19; 90.4%). Sixteen (80.0%) believed they would
benefit from more opportunities (Table 40). Health promotion workers were most
likely to attend training programs (n=13; 68.4%) and as with the region as a whole
74
most preferred to network face to face (n=18; 90.0%). Eighteen participants
(90.0%) indicated they would benefit from facilitated networking sessions held in
conjunction with existing professional development programs.
Table 40 CVHA Networking Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Do you have satisfactory internal networking opportunities?
No 2 (9.5)
Yes 19 (90.4)
Skipped question 5
Do you network externally?
No 2 (9.5)
Yes 19 (90.4)
Skipped question 5
If yes where do you network?*
Central Goldfields 14 (73.7)
Bendigo Loddon 12 (63.2)
State-wide 10 (52.6)
Metropolitan 7 (36.8)
Campaspe 6 (31.6)
Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke 5 (26.3)
Mildura 5 (26.3)
Nationally 3 (15.8)
Skipped question 7
Do you feel you would benefit from more opportunities to
network? No 4 (20.0)
Yes 16 (80.0)
Skipped question 6
If yes, what would you be most likely to attend across the
Loddon Mallee Region?*
Training 13 (68.4)
Workshops 11 (57.9)
Forums 9 (47.4)
Seminars 9 (47.4)
Meet and greet discussion groups 6 (31.6)
Skipped question 7
How do you prefer to network?*
Face to face 18 (90.0)
Web based 9 (45.0)
Forums 8 (40.0)
Phone calls 8 (40.0)
Seminars 7 (35.0)
Skipped question 6
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated network
sessions in conjunction with existing professional
development courses/seminars etc? No 2 (10.0)
Yes 18 (90.0)
Skipped question 6
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
75
Future needs and opportunities
Five participants (23.8%) had undertaken the HPSC (Table 41), all of whom
indicated that they had applied it in their HP activities. Two (40.0%) had used it to
continue with their formal education. Of those who had not done the course nine
(56.3%) indicated they would be interested in completing it in the future. Eleven
participants (57.9%) felt they required further HP professional development. A
number indicated that general updates would be useful as it was a continuously
changing field. Others indicated resources and training in needs analysis and
evaluation.
Table 41 CVHA Future Needs and Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Have you participated in the DHS 5-day Health Promotion
Short course (HPSC)? No 16 (76.2)
Yes (all prior to 2008) 5 (23.8)
Skipped question 5
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5 day HP short
course to your practice?
Yes 5 (100.0)
Did you use the 5-day HPSC to continue your formal
education in health promotion?
No 3 (60.0)
Yes 2 (40.0)
If you haven’t previously done the 5-day HP short course
would you be interested in participating in the future?
No 7 (43.7)
Yes 9 (56.3)
Skipped question 10
Do you feel you require further professional development in
health promotion practice?
No 8 (42.1)
Yes 11 (57.9)
Skipped question 7
Which of the following health promotion development
options have you participated previously?*
Workshops 7 (46.7)
Seminars 7 (46.7)
Mental health short course 6 (40.0)
Indigenous health promotion short course 2 (13.3)
Health promotion introductory course (1 day) 1 (6.7)
Tertiary study 3 (20.0)
Skipped question 11
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
76
Participants were then asked where their health promotion strengths lay. Participants
indicated strengths in networking (n=12; 66.7%), program planning (n=12; 66.7%),
facilitation (n=11; 61.1%), implementation (n=10; 55.6%) and education (n=9;
50.0%). One third indicated skills in evaluation (n=6; 33.3%). Five participants
(27.8%) indicated having skills in needs assessments and three in research methods
(16.7%). Participants identified a number of areas where they felt their skills could
be further developed. At the top of the list were report writing, evaluation and
research methods (Table 42).
Table 42 CVHA Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs
Number (Valid %)
*
What are your strengths in the area of health promotion?
Networking 12 (66.7)
Program planning 12 (66.7)
Facilitation 11 (61.1)
Implementation 10 (55.6)
Education 9 (50.0)
Evaluation 6 (33.3)
Needs Assessment 5 (27.8)
Research methods 3 (16.7)
Other 3 (16.7)
Skipped question 8
How could you further develop your skills in Health
Promotion?*
Report writing 9 (50.0)
Evaluation 8 (44.4)
Research Methods 8 (44.4)
Management and leadership 7 (38.9)
Needs Assessment 6 (33.3)
Conference presentation 6 (33.3)
Policy 5 (27.8)
Facilitation 5 (27.8)
Education 5 (27.8)
Networking 4 (22.2)
Program planning 4 (22.2)
Implementation 4 (22.2)
Advocacy 3 (16.7)
Other 3 (16.7)
Skipped Question 8
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
77
Preferred methods for developing HP skills were internal professional development
opportunities (n= 11; 64.7%), workshops (n=11; 64.7%) and management with
increased knowledge and skills in health promotion (n=11; 64.7%). Ten participants
also identified networking (n=10; 58.8%) (Table 43).
Table 43 CVHA Respondents preferred method to developing HP skills
Number (Valid
%)
Which of the following will be most effective in further
developing your skills?*
Professional development opportunities-internally 11 (64.7)
Workshops 11 (64.7)
Management with increased knowledge/skills of HP 11 (64.7)
Networking 10 (58.8)
Stronger professional relationships 8 (47.1)
Seminars 8 (47.1)
Management/leadership 7 (41.2)
Mentoring/Supervision 7 (41.2)
HP Short Course (5-day) 5 (29.4)
HP Introductory course (1 day) 4 (23.5)
Tertiary or TAFE qualification 3 (17.6)
DHS support 3 (17.6)
PCP support 2 (11.8)
Skipped question 9
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Cost was identified by fourteen participants (73.7%) as a barrier to participating in
HP events with distance and time also of concern to thirteen (68.4%) participants
(Table 44).
Table 44 CVHA Barriers to developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
What do you feel are the barriers to participating in
health promotion development events?*
Cost 14 (73.7)
Time 13 (68.4)
Distance 13 (68.4)
Other (focus; organisation support) 5 (26.3)
Skipped question 7
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
78
Central Victorian Health Alliance Recommendations
Recommendation 1
As per Regional Recommendation #7; The CBSC should offer a Health Promotion
Short Course in 2010.
Recommendation 2
As per Regional Recommendation #3; Workshop sessions be implemented for the
HPW with a focus on:
1. Needs Assessment
2. Report Writing
3. Evaluation.
Recommendation 3
As per Regional Recommendation #5; Workshops specifically target and include local
government health promotion workers for training based on evaluation and program
planning, conducting needs assessment and research methods.
Recommendation 4
Provide training opportunities for workers to increase knowledge and skills in
preparing and presenting at conferences.
Recommendation 5
Provide training opportunities for positions of management to increase their
knowledge and skills in health promotion in order to better provide support to
workers.
Recommendation 6
Provide ongoing opportunities for workers to network face to face and provide
professional peer support within the catchment.
Recommendation 7
Facilitate increased access to the most up to date (best-practice) evidence in health
promotion and public health- local, national & international evidence.
79
Appendix 9 Campaspe PCP Area Survey Results
Campaspe PCP area
Workforce Characteristics
Twenty-two health promotion staff indicated they worked in the Campaspe PCP area.
Three of these worked in areas other than the Campaspe PCP catchment (Table 45).
Seven HP workers (31.8%) worked for local government organisations. This was
larger than the proportion working for local government in the LMR region as a whole
(14.3%). The majority of Campaspe HP workers (n=16; 72.8%) had been in their
current position for three years or less. Five workers had been in their current role
for more than five years (18.2%). Twenty participants (90.9%) indicated they had
either undergraduate or postgraduate qualifications with five (22.7%) indicating their
field of study as health promotion. This is slightly higher than the proportion in the
LMR region overall, where just over seventeen percent of participants indicated
health promotion as their field of study.
Health promotion responsibilities
Most health promotion workers were responsible for a broad range of HP activities
particularly in program planning, evaluation and coordination (Table 46).
Participants were involved in a wide range of programs, the most frequently
mentioned being associated with physical activity (n=10). Other programs included
disability and aged, oral health, children’s programs, mental health, sexual health,
family violence, and nutrition. Twelve participants (54.5%) indicated they did not
have time to complete their tasks.
80
Table 45 CPCP Workforce Characteristics
Number (%)
Who do you work for*
Local Government 7 (31.8)
Non-government organisation 5 (22.7)
Community health 4 (18.2)
Hospital 3 (13.6)
PCP 3 (13.6)
Community service organisation 1 (4.5)
Other PCP areas HP workers are located*
Bendigo Loddon 3 (13.6)
Southern Mallee 3 (13.6)
Northern Mallee 3 (13.6)
Central Victorian AH 3 (13.6)
Time in current position < 1 year 8 (36.4)
1-3 years 8 (36.4)
3-5 years 2 (9.1)
More than 5 years 4 (18.2)
What is the nature of your role*
Part time 7 (31.2)
Full time 9 (40.9)
Contract/fixed 6 (27.3)
Ongoing 2 (9.1)
Job share 1 (4.5)
Highest level of education VCE (or equivalent) 0
Diploma/Certificate 1 (4.5)
Undergraduate 9 (40.9)
Postgraduate 11 (50.0)
Other (SACS management) 1 (4.5)
Field of study* Health Promotion 5 (22.7)
Community development 5 (22.7)
Allied Health 3 (13.6)
Nursing 2 (9.1)
Social work 1 (4.5)
Other (Public health; Science; Sport/Rec; business) 13 (59.1)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Table 46 CPCP Health Promotion Responsibilities
Number (%)
*
Health promotion responsibilities
Program Planning 16 (72.2)
Program Evaluation 15 (68.2)
Program Coordination 14 (63.6)
Management 13 (59.1)
Program implementation 12 (54.5)
Networking 11 (50.0)
Needs Assessment 8 (36.4)
Health Education 7 (31.8)
Group facilitation 6 (27.3)
Health Research 6 (27.3)
Other 3 (13.6)
Do you have adequate time to complete these tasks?
No 12 (54.5)
Yes 10 (45.5)
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
81
Professional support and networking
Seven participants (36.8%) were involved in a formal support program and as with
the other regions most (n=10; 71.4%) relied on management for support (Table
47). This support varied in frequency and most participants found it a beneficial
process (n=13; 86.7%). 53.8% (n=13) believed it could be improved. Ideas for
improving the process included more time, more training, making support programs
a priority and formalising the process.
Table 47 CPCP Professional Support
Number (Valid %)
Do you participate in a formal support program?
No 12 (63.2)
Yes 7 (36.8)
Skipped question 3
Are you a Supervisor, Mentor or Mentee?*
Supervisor 8 (72.7)
Mentor 1 (9.1)
Mentee 3 (27.3)
Skipped question 11
Who provides you with support in your health
promotion role?*
Management 10 (71.4)
Others – (PCPs; External agencies; board/committee of
management) 7 (50.0)
Skipped question 8
If you receive support how often? *
Daily 1 (7.1)
Weekly 4 (28.6)
Fortnightly 3 (21.4)
Monthly 2 (14.3)
Annually 0
Other –(as required) 4 (28.6)
Skipped question 8
Do you feel this is a beneficial process?
No 2 (13.3)
Yes 13 (86.7)
Skipped question 7
Is there anything that could be done to improve this
process?
No 6 (46.2)
Yes 7 (53.8)
Skipped question 9
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
82
Campaspe health promotion workers indicated they had satisfactory internal and
external networking opportunities (Table 48). Fifteen (88.2%) believed they would
benefit from more networking opportunities. Health promotion workers were most
likely to attend workshops to network (n=13; 76.5%) and as with the region as a
whole most preferred to network face to face (n=14; 82.4%). Fifteen participants
(88.2%) indicated they would benefit from facilitated networking sessions held in
conjunction with existing professional development programs.
Table 48 CPCP Networking Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Do you have satisfactory internal networking opportunities?
Yes 18 (100.0)
Skipped question 4
Do you network externally?
No 2 (11.1)
Yes 16 (88.9)
Skipped question 4
If yes where do you network?*
Campaspe 13 (81.3)
State-wide 8 (50.0)
Bendigo Loddon 7 (43.8)
Metropolitan 6 (37.5)
Swan Hill, Gannawarra, Buloke 6 (37.5)
Mildura 5 (31.3)
Central Goldfields 4 (25.0)
Nationally 3 (18.8)
Skipped question 6
Do you feel you would benefit from more opportunities to
network? No 2 (11.8)
Yes 15 (88.2)
Skipped question 5
If yes, what would you be most likely to attend across the
Loddon Mallee Region?*
Workshops 13 (76.5)
Training 10 (58.8)
Forums 10 (58.8)
Seminars 10 (58.8)
Meet and greet discussion groups 7 (41.2)
Skipped question 5
How do you prefer to network?*
Face to face 14 (82.4)
Forums 11 (64.7)
Seminars 9 (52.9)
Phone calls 3 (17.6)
Web based 3 (17.6)
Skipped question 5
Would you benefit from participating in facilitated network
sessions in conjunction with existing professional
development courses/seminars etc? No 2 (11.8)
Yes 15 (88.2)
Skipped question 5
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
83
Future needs and opportunities
Four participants (22.2%) had undertaken the HPSC (Table 49). When asked if they
had been able to apply the knowledge gained into practice, all who responded
indicated yes (n=3 100.0%). One (25.0%) had used it to continue with their formal
education. Of those who had not done the course seven (46.7%) indicated they
would be interested in completing it in the future. Eleven participants (68.8%) felt
they required further HP professional development. A number indicated that ongoing
training was always good. Other suggestions included evaluation skills, practice
evidence, planning and best practice.
Table 49 CPCP Future Needs and Opportunities
Number (Valid %)
Have you participated in the DHS health promotions 5-day
Short course (HPSC)? No 14 (77.8)
Yes (all prior to 2008) 4 (22.2)
Skipped question 4
Have you been able to apply aspects of the 5 day course to
your practice?
No 0
Yes 3 (100.0)
Skipped question 1
Did you use the 5-day health promotion course to continue
your formal education in health promotion?
No 3 (75.0)
Yes 1 (25.0)
If you haven’t previously done the 5-day HP course would
you be interested in participating in the future?
No 8 (53.3)
Yes 7 (46.7)
Skipped question 7
Do you feel you require further professional development in
health promotion practice?
No 5 (31.2)
Yes 11 (68.8)
Skipped question 6
Which of the following health promotion development
options have you participated previously?*
Workshops 9 (75.0)
Seminars 8 (66.7)
Mental health short course 5 (41.7)
Indigenous health promotion short course 0
Health promotion introductory course (1 day) 0
Skipped question 10
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
84
Participants were then asked where their health promotion strengths lay. Participants
indicated strengths in networking (n=10; 58.8%), program planning (n=10; 58.8%),
facilitation (n=9; 52.9%), and implementation (n=9; 52.9%). Participants identified
a number of areas where they felt their skills could be further developed. At the top
of the list were needs assessments, evaluation and management and leadership
skills (Table 50).
Table 50 CPCP Health Promotion Strengths and Development Needs
Number (Valid %)
*
What are your strengths in the area of health promotion?
Networking 10 (58.8)
Program planning 10 (58.8)
Facilitation 9 (52.9)
Implementation 9 (52.9)
Evaluation 7 (41.2)
Education 4 (23.5)
Needs Assessment 4 (23.5)
Research methods 4 (23.5)
Other (policy; community engagement) 2 (11.8)
Skipped question 5
How could you further develop your skills in Health
Promotion?*
Needs Assessment 10 (55.6)
Evaluation 10 (55.6)
Management and leadership 10 (55.6)
Research Methods 9 (50.0)
Report writing 8 (44.4)
Program planning 7 (38.9)
Policy 7 (38.9)
Conference presentation 6 (33.3)
Facilitation 5 (27.8)
Advocacy 5 (27.8)
Education 4 (22.2)
Networking 3 (16.7)
Implementation 3 (16.7)
Other 2 (11.1)
Skipped Question 4
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
85
Preferred methods for developing HP skills were workshops (n=13; 72.2%), internal
professional development opportunities (n= 11; 61.1%), and mentoring/supervision
(n=10; 55.6%), (Table 51).
Table 51 CPCP Respondents preferred method for developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
Which of the following will be most effective in further
developing your skills?*
Workshops 13 (72.2)
Professional development opportunities-internally 11 (61.1)
Mentoring/Supervision 10 (55.6)
Seminars 8 (44.4)
Networking 8 (44.4)
HP Introductory course (1 day) 8 (44.4)
Stronger professional relationships 8 (44.4)
Management with increased knowledge/skills of HP 7 (38.9)
Management/leadership 7 (38.9)
HP Short Course (5-day) 3 (16.7)
Tertiary or TAFE qualification 3 (16.7)
DHS support 3 (16.7)
PCP support 2 (11.1)
Other 5 (27.8)
Skipped question 4
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
Time was identified by twelve participants (70.6%) as a barrier to participating in HP
events (Table 52). Ten participants (58.8%) identified distance as a barrier. Less
than half the participants specified cost as a barrier (n=8; 47.1%).
Table 52 CPCP Barriers to developing HP skills
Number (Valid %)
What do you feel are the barriers to participating in
health promotion development events?*
Time 12 (70.6)
Distance 10 (58.8)
Cost 8 (47.1)
Other 1 (5.9)
Skipped question 5
* Percentages do not add to 100% as participants could select more than one answer
86
Campaspe PCP Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Initiatives should promote and provide increased opportunities for formal support for
the local Health Promotion Workforce.
Recommendation 2
As per Regional Recommendation #13; Managers and supervisors who do not have
qualifications or have limited experience in Health Promotion are encouraged to
attend the Health Promotion Short Course and/or other health promotion training.
Recommendation 3
Workshops incorporating professional development and facilitated networking should
be offered to Campaspe staff. Workshops are required in evaluation, evidence-based
practice, needs assessment and management and leadership skills.
Recommendation 4
Capacity building initiatives should consider the time required for staff to attend as
many HP staff are fractional and identify time as the biggest barrier to participation.
87
