Leah Johnston
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Leah Johnston has a total of 14 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Joyce Doyle
Onemda VicHealth Koori Health Group, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
2 shared publications - Kevin Rowley
The Onemda Group, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
2 shared publications - Margaret Cargo
School of Population Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
2 shared publications - Mayatili Marika
Onemda VicHealth Koori Health Group, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
2 shared publications - Rachel Reilly
Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Equity Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
2 shared publications - Bec Morgan
Centre of Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 8 December 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Public Health
- Vol. 15 (1) , 1-9
Strengths and limitations of a tool for monitoring and evaluating First Peoples’ health promotion from an ecological perspective
An ecological approach to health and health promotion targets individuals and the environmental determinants of their health as a means of more effectively influencing health outcomes. The approach has potential value as a means to more accurately capture the holistic nature of Australian First Peoples’ health programs and the way in which they seek to influence environmental, including social, determinants of health. We report several case studies of applying an ecological approach to health program evaluation using a tool developed for application to mainstream public health programs in North America – Richard’s ecological coding procedure. We find the ecological approach in general, and the Richard procedure specifically, to have potential for broader use as an approach to reporting and evaluation of health promotion programs. However, our experience applying this tool in academic and community-based program evaluation contexts, conducted in collaboration with First Peoples of Australia, suggests that it would benefit from cultural adaptations that would bring the ecological coding procedure in greater alignment with the worldviews of First Peoples and better identify the aims and strategies of local health promotion programs. Establishing the cultural validity of the ecological coding procedure is necessary to adequately capture the underlying program activities of community-based health promotion programs designed to benefit First Peoples, and its collaborative implementation with First Peoples supports a human rights approach to health program evaluation.
- 8 December 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Public Health
- Vol. 15 (1) , 1-9
Open AccessStrengths and limitations of a tool for monitoring and evaluating First Peoples’ health promotion from an ecological perspective
An ecological approach to health and health promotion targets individuals and the environmental determinants of their health as a means of more effectively influencing health outcomes. The approach has potential value as a means to more accurately capture the holistic nature of Australian First Peoples’ health programs and the way in which they seek to influence environmental, including social, determinants of health. We report several case studies of applying an ecological approach to health program evaluation using a tool developed for application to mainstream public health programs in North America – Richard’s ecological coding procedure. We find the ecological approach in general, and the Richard procedure specifically, to have potential for broader use as an approach to reporting and evaluation of health promotion programs. However, our experience applying this tool in academic and community-based program evaluation contexts, conducted in collaboration with First Peoples of Australia, suggests that it would benefit from cultural adaptations that would bring the ecological coding procedure in greater alignment with the worldviews of First Peoples and better identify the aims and strategies of local health promotion programs. Establishing the cultural validity of the ecological coding procedure is necessary to adequately capture the underlying program activities of community-based health promotion programs designed to benefit First Peoples, and its collaborative implementation with First Peoples supports a human rights approach to health program evaluation.
- Open Access
- 9 August 2013
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 10 (8) , 3518-3542
A Review of Programs That Targeted Environmental Determinants of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Objective: Effective interventions to improve population and individual health require environmental change as well as strategies that target individual behaviours and clinical factors. This is the basis of implementing an ecological approach to health programs and health promotion. For Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders, colonisation has made the physical and social environment particularly detrimental for health. Methods and Results: We conducted a literature review to identify Aboriginal health interventions that targeted environmental determinants of health, identifying 21 different health programs. Program activities that targeted environmental determinants of health included: Caring for Country; changes to food supply and/or policy; infrastructure for physical activity; housing construction and maintenance; anti-smoking policies; increased workforce capacity; continuous quality improvement of clinical systems; petrol substitution; and income management. Targets were categorised according to Miller’s Living Systems Theory. Researchers using an Indigenous community based perspective more often identified interpersonal and community-level targets than were identified using a Western academic perspective. Conclusions: Although there are relatively few papers describing interventions that target environmental determinants of health, many of these addressed such determinants at multiple levels, consistent to some degree with an ecological approach. Interpretation of program targets sometimes differed between academic and community-based perspectives, and was limited by the type of data reported in the journal articles, highlighting the need for local Indigenous knowledge for accurate program evaluation. Implications: While an ecological approach to Indigenous health is increasingly evident in the health research literature, the design and evaluation of such programs requires a wide breadth of expertise, including local Indigenous knowledge.
- 9 August 2013
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 10 (8) , 3518-3542
Open AccessA Review of Programs That Targeted Environmental Determinants of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Objective: Effective interventions to improve population and individual health require environmental change as well as strategies that target individual behaviours and clinical factors. This is the basis of implementing an ecological approach to health programs and health promotion. For Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders, colonisation has made the physical and social environment particularly detrimental for health. Methods and Results: We conducted a literature review to identify Aboriginal health interventions that targeted environmental determinants of health, identifying 21 different health programs. Program activities that targeted environmental determinants of health included: Caring for Country; changes to food supply and/or policy; infrastructure for physical activity; housing construction and maintenance; anti-smoking policies; increased workforce capacity; continuous quality improvement of clinical systems; petrol substitution; and income management. Targets were categorised according to Miller’s Living Systems Theory. Researchers using an Indigenous community based perspective more often identified interpersonal and community-level targets than were identified using a Western academic perspective. Conclusions: Although there are relatively few papers describing interventions that target environmental determinants of health, many of these addressed such determinants at multiple levels, consistent to some degree with an ecological approach. Interpretation of program targets sometimes differed between academic and community-based perspectives, and was limited by the type of data reported in the journal articles, highlighting the need for local Indigenous knowledge for accurate program evaluation. Implications: While an ecological approach to Indigenous health is increasingly evident in the health research literature, the design and evaluation of such programs requires a wide breadth of expertise, including local Indigenous knowledge.