A ‘rural proofing’ framework, which offers assessment of the potential impacts of policies on rural and remote communities, has been advocated for by state governments and interest groups throughout Australia. It is argued that rural proofing can be used to redress health inequities between urban and rural and remote communities. While implementation of rural proofing in some countries shows promising results, there are many social and spatial contexts that should be considered prior to its adoption in Australia. Rural proofing is not the best option for rural health policy in Australia. It has been imported from communities where the urban/rural divide is minimal. It is based on a rigid urban/rural binary model that targets disparity rather than accommodating the diversity of rural communities. Rural proofing concentrates on tick-the-box activities, where rural communities are not sufficiently consulted. There is no unified federal ministry in Australia with responsibility for rural and remote affairs. Considering potential shortcomings of rural proofing for health policies, it is imperative for Australia to have a specific rural health policy at both federal and state levels.
Assessing the cost of providing a prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS service in Ethiopia: urban-rural health facilities setting
