While observational studies and clinical service data suggest that Primary Health Care (PHC) services contribute to improved health outcomes among Aboriginal populations, there remains a notable gap in empirical research assessing this impact in Central Australia. In particular, no studies to date have evaluated the relationship between PHC utilisation and preventable hospital admissions for Aboriginal people in this region.

This quantitative study aimed to examine the impact of PHC utilisation on hospitalisation of Aboriginal people in Central Australia. All Northern Territory (NT) Government Health clinics and four Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) participated. Clinical service data and NT death registration records were extracted and securely linked via a data linkage service using de-identified datasets. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA to explore the relationship between PHC encounters and hospital admissions.

Key findings include:

• PHC visits influence hospital admissions. Regular attendance—around four visits annually—to ACCHS’s clinics was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalisation.
• When annual PHC visits ranged 3-7, the death rate remained consistently low (0.01). This trend mirrors the association between PHC visits and hospital admissions.
• Both hospitalisation rates and PHC visits were higher among females than males. Among those with no clinic visits, females had about seven hospitalisations annually, compared to five for males.
• Care plans reduce hospital admissions. Having a care plan significantly contributed to lowering hospitalisation among Aboriginal patients.
• The impact of PHC visits on hospitalisation rates varied between ACCHSs and NT Health clinics. In remote areas, ACCHSs appeared to perform better—likely due to stronger staffing capacity, deeper cultural connections and greater cultural acceptability among patients.
• Community mobility across regions may affect PHC attendance and health outcomes, warranting further investigation.

Comprehensive PHC—especially through ACCHSs—reduces hospitalisations and supports better outcomes for Aboriginal people, highlighting the need to strengthen community-led care models.

Aboriginal Governance, data sovereignty and cultural appropriateness
Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (Congress) is an Aboriginal community-controlled health service, governed by a Board elected by the Aboriginal community.

For over 50 years, Congress provided health services and advocacy for Aboriginal people in the struggle for justice and equity. Since that time, Congress has developed a comprehensive, holistic and culturally-responsive primary health care service for Aboriginal people living in Mparntwe (Alice Springs), and nine remote communities: Amoonguna; Ntaria (Hermannsburg); Wallace Rockhole; Ltyentye Apurte (Santa Teresa); Utju (Areyonga); Mutitjulu; Imanpa; Kaltukatjara (Docker River); and Yulara.

Today, we are one of the most experienced Aboriginal primary health care services in the country, a strong political advocate for the health of our people, and a national leader in improving health outcomes for all First Nations.

All research carried out by Congress or in which Congress participates is approved by the Congress Board in strict accordance with the principles of Aboriginal data sovereignty and cultural responsiveness.

Background
Active transport (walking, cycling) offers a means of raising physical activity (PA) at the population level. Forecasting and valuing the health benefits of transport projects that increase PA can inform investment decisions. The Ministry of Health NSW initiated a project to identify, develop, and pilot test a best practice method to estimate the health benefits of changes in active transport behaviour and translate these benefits to an economic value, with oversight from a cross-agency advisory group consisting of representatives from six NSW government clusters: Treasury; Transport; Planning, Industry and Environment; Premier and Cabinet; Education; and Health.

Methods
The Active Transport Health Model quantifies the health impacts of changes in active transport use over a population’s lifetime. The Model is parameterised to NSW. Health outcomes related to PA, air pollution and road trauma are included. Outputs include age- and sex-specific changes in disease incidence, prevalence, and mortality, summarised as health adjusted life years. These are translated to monetary terms. The model was piloted in four real-life applications across NSW.

Results
Compared to car use, the health benefits for a km walking are valued at A$5.00 to A$6.50, and between A$2.50 to A$3.00 for a km cycled. Values are sensitive to age and prior PA level. A model user guide/ manual was developed and NSW Ministry of Health staff were trained in the operation of the model. The work underpins the new reference outcome values for transport-related business cases in NSW.

Conclusions
The Active Transport Health Model provides a best practice method to value the health impacts of active transport infrastructure projects proposed in NSW. The Model could also be used to determine the potential health benefits of other policies aimed at increasing populations’ PA levels.

Funding
NSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia.

Introduction This paper critically examines a collaborative partnership between university researchers, government-funded health promotion staff and policy makers focused on child healthy eating and active living initiatives under NSW Health's Prevention Research Support Program (PRSP). Academic and government sectors often operate separately, creating barriers to knowledge exchange that delay implementation of evidence-based public health approaches. This evaluation explores the challenges and successes experienced during this five-year collaboration, offering insights for future cross-sector partnerships in public health promotion.
Methods An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to 30 key stakeholders from the PRSP-funded 'EnHANCE' research collaboration. Open-ended questions based on Gibbs' Reflective Cycle (1998) prompted participants to evaluate collaborative experiences from July 2017 through June 2022. Respondents included University of Wollongong academics, PhD candidates and NSW Health staff (both managers and health promotion officers). Deductive thematic analysis identified and categorised response patterns to highlight challenges and achievements experienced throughout the partnership.
Results Fifteen participants completed the survey. Challenges included COVID-19 disruptions, managing regional differences and initial mismatches in organisational priorities and timelines. Key achievements included establishing a balanced, equitable research partnership, swift local application of research findings, improved cross-regional knowledge sharing and gradual alignment of research with health promotion goals as relationships strengthened. Participants particularly valued the face-to-face opportunities for collaboration when available. Continuous funding cycles proved crucial, allowing partnerships sufficient time to mature and deliver meaningful outcomes that benefited both academic and practice environments.
Conclusions The PRSP demonstrates an effective funding model for meaningful collaboration between academics, policy makers and practitioners in public health promotion. Future funding schemes should build in opportunities for relationship development and cross-organisational learning, while researchers should explore adaptable frameworks for research partnerships that acknowledge differing organisational priorities and timeframes. Long-term funding commitments appear essential for such partnerships to reach their full potential.

Background: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) advances Health in All Policies by identifying health and equity impacts of proposed actions and recommending changes to address these impacts. Despite demonstrated effectiveness, HIA use globally remains inconsistent, with few nations systematically implementing HIA. In a context of increasing health inequities, pandemics, climate change, and economic crises, there is an urgent need for research to support HIA's ongoing evolution and development.
Methods: We employed a mixed-methods approach involving approximately 280 participants across an international online survey and participatory workshops. We conducted thematic analysis of survey responses and workshop discussions to identify priority research areas, comparing findings across data sources and supplementing with literature review.
Results: Four key research priorities emerged: (1) Institutionalisation—sustaining and institutionalising HIA across varying contexts and levels; (2) Influence—identifying mechanisms to effectively influence stakeholders and decision-making; (3) Equity and Participation—analysing the role of equity, justice, power and participation in HIA; and (4) Methodology—improving HIA methods to understand complex relationships between proposed actions and health equity outcomes. Research questions were developed for each theme, emphasising transdisciplinary approaches and consideration of diverse knowledge systems.
Conclusions: This research agenda provides a routemap for strengthening HIA's impact in addressing global health challenges. It advocates for sustained research and practice that moves beyond technical assessment to consider power dynamics, social justice, and community empowerment. The agenda particularly emphasises the need for research that advances equity-focused approaches and enhances HIA's capacity to address structural determinants of health inequities, ultimately contributing to a healthier and more equitable world.

Introduction: Australia is experiencing a growing food insecurity (FI) crisis, disproportionately impacting population groups of low-socioeconomic status and contributing to poor health. Understanding the current barriers to cost and affordability of food at a local government level is imperative to transforming food access and availability.

Aim: To understand the feasibility of cost and affordability tools that can be used to assess the degree of food access for different food outlet types in households across North-East Melbourne.

Methods: A scoping review of studies published in English using 10 databases from January 2010 to March 2025 was completed. Eligible studies included (1) one or more food cost and affordability tools, (2) high income western countries, (3) full-text original articles and reviews. Semi-structured interviews, tailored to achieve clear objectives, were held with relevant stakeholders, including local government staff, NGOs and subject matter experts.

Key findings: 22 studies were included in the scoping review, which identified eight cost and affordability tools. A deep dive into these tools identified the Australian Standardised Affordability and Pricing (ASAP), Victorian Healthy Food Basket (VHFB), and Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in Stores (NEM-S) as validated for Australian metropolitan settings. The ASAP protocol was the most feasible for application within the Melbourne-based catchment, as it can be adapted to different settings (e.g., lower socio-economic groups) and is validated for online and phone-based price collection methods. Semi-structured interviews identified that implementing the ASAP tool is feasible, and to strengthen capacity, a partnership approach between relevant stakeholders is required.

Conclusion: Understanding the cost and affordability of the current food environment through a standardised food pricing tool (ASAP) offers valuable insights into food security. This tool also has the potential to inform, monitor, and evaluate policies and interventions aimed at driving long-term improvements in food security across North-Eastern Melbourne and other Australian locations.

Background
Health-related food taxes and subsidies can be used to improve diets and reduce the burden of diet-related diseases. Despite this potential, these policies have largely remained off the political agenda in Australia, with various actors and interest groups contesting the evidence and arguments in this policy space. In this study, we investigated key stakeholders’ views on the acceptability and feasibility of various health-related food taxes and subsidies in Australia.

Methods
We conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews with twenty stakeholders via Microsoft Teams between February 2025 and June 2025. The purposive sample of stakeholders included politicians, bureaucrats, public health experts, food industry, community health organisations, and consumer representatives. Responses were analysed thematically using an inductive approach.

Results
We identified three primary themes for food taxes: stakeholders value the evidence base on health taxes but interpret it differently, stakeholders cannot agree on an appropriate tax design (e.g., tax type, scope, and use of hypothecation), and taxes pose economic challenges (e.g., cost-of-living and regressivity concerns).

Furthermore, we derived two primary themes for food subsidies: many stakeholders are keen for additional food subsidy programs beyond food relief (e.g., school feeding programs, vouchers, and subsidies in remote stores) and subsidies would be challenging to implement and oversee (e.g., accessibility challenges and eligibility concerns).

Conclusions
Stakeholders expressed greater support for health-related food subsidies than taxes, though practical implementation challenges remain a key barrier. Broader support for food taxes may be achieved by addressing concerns around tax design and economic impact.

The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges for public health. This presentation explores how AI can be responsibly integrated into digital and virtual health systems to improve accessibility, safety, and equity, while fostering public trust.

Drawing on Healthdirect Australia’s implementation of an AI-enabled Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) and symptom checker, I will present a case study of leadership in the safe, transparent use of AI in public-facing services. Used by over a million Australians each month, the tool provides real-time triage advice.

In a context where AI adoption can deepen digital divides or erode trust, Healthdirect has prioritised clinical governance, consumer co-design, and independent validation. Our clinical governance framework ensures regular evaluations for safety and clinical accuracy. We have also developed a multi-layered transparency approach, including a public AI transparency statement and explainability statement designed to support informed decision-making.

Importantly, the AI platform has also enabled the generation of timely public health insights by identifying emerging symptom trends, user behaviours, and service access patterns, supporting system-wide responsiveness and targeted health interventions.

This session will share practical insights into the challenges and enablers of integrating AI into public health services. Key themes include managing bias, sustaining public trust, and ensuring that digital innovation enhances rather than undermines equity.

AI can be a powerful connector in a divided world, improving health outcomes when implemented with care and accountability. This case study offers a roadmap for public health leaders seeking to harness AI’s potential while upholding foundational values of safety, inclusion, and trust.