ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
The New Environmental Health in Australia: Failure to Launch?
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental Health Practice: An Identity in Crisis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Connecting the Dots: Systems Thinking Highlights the Role of the Environment Sector in One Health Operationalization.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Article
- Climate Change and Health: Challenges to the Local Government Environmental Health Workforce in South Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Climate Change and Health: Local Government Capacity for Health Protection in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Public health challenges facing Environmental Health Officers during COVID-19: methamphetamine contamination of properties.Australian and New Zealand journal of public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe New Environmental Health is an approach to environmental health adopted in 1999. The new approach was in response to emerging health risks from the pressures that development placed on the environment, climate change, and increasing vulnerabilities of local communities. The new approach heralded a change in perception and roles within environmental health. Twenty years on, it seems these changes have not been embraced by local government.
methodsTo determine whether this was the case, we assessed the use of the term "environmental health" in local government annual reports, and where environmental health functions sit within the organisational structure of councils.
resultsWe found that the New Environmental Health has not been adopted by councils and environmental health relates solely to the delivery of statutory services and legislative compliance.
conclusionsOne result of this is local environmental health practitioners, who constitute the major health protection capability of councils, are defined by the narrow legislative obligations imposed on councils. This represents a significant lost opportunity as public health is not protected in the way that was envisaged with the adoption of the New Environmental Health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.