Health policy in South Australia 2003–10: primary health care workforce perceptions of the impact of policy change on health promotion Gwyn Jolley A,E , Toby Freeman A , Fran Baum A , Catherine Hurley A , Angela Lawless A , Michael Bentley A,D , Ronald Labonté B and David Sanders C A Southgate Institute for Health, Society, and Equity, Faculty of Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia. B Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada. C School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, Bellville 7535, South Africa. D School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7000, Australia. E Corresponding author. Email: gwyn.jolley@flinders.edu.au Abstract Issue addressed: This paper examines recent Australian health reform policies and considers how the primary health care (PHC) workforce experiences subsequent change and perceives its impact on health promotion practice. Methods: Health policy documents were analysed to determine their intended impact on health promotion. Interviews were conducted with 39 respondents from four State-funded PHC services to gain their perceptions of the impact of policy change on health promotion. Results: There have been a plethora of policy and strategy documents over the last decade relevant to PHC, and these suggest an intention to strengthen health promotion. However, respondents report that changes to the role and focus of PHC services have led to fewer opportunities for health promotion. Services are struggling to engage in health promotion activity, while funding and policy directions are prioritised to targeted, individual behaviour change. Conclusion: The experience of PHC workforce respondents in South Australia suggests that, despite policy intentions, health promotion practice is much reduced. Our research suggests that rigorous evaluation of health sector reforms should be undertaken to assess both intended and unintended outcomes in terms of service quality and delivery. So what? Health promoters are experiencing a contradictory policy and practice environment, and this research should assist health promoters in advocating for more government accountability in the implementation of policies in order to advance comprehensive PHC.? Key words: evaluation, health care reform, health policy, health promotion, primary health care. Received 14 October 2013, accepted 9 June 2014, published online 28 August 2014 Introduction Waves of reorganisation and policy change have been features of health systems in developed countries for several decades. 1–3 In the late 1970s, changing ideas about health led to the WHO–UNICEF Alma-Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care (PHC), 4 which called for more a comprehensive approach to primary care that included actions on disease prevention and health promotion. In 1986, the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion 5 elaborated several strategies for doing so, from improving personal skills for health to building supportive environments, strengthening community action and advocating healthy public policies. Also, central to the Ottawa Charter strategies was a reorientation of health services towards a system that is community-based and controlled and which focuses on positive health rather than hospital-based, highly technological interventions for people who are already sick. In the early 1970s in Australia, foreshadowing these global developments, an Aboriginal community-controlled sector began pioneering comprehensive PHC, 6 and a federal Community Health Program was set up that led to the establishment of multidisciplinary health centres. 7 Globally, this period was quickly followed by an era of neoliberalism, emphasising private sector efficiency, including New Public Journal compilation Ó Australian Health Promotion Association 2014 CSIRO Publishing www.publish.csiro.au/journals/hpja Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2014, 25, 116–124 Public Policy and Systems Thinking http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/HE13088