Search

While the health of and healthcare use by migrants has received significant scholarly and policy attention in Australia, current debates highlight that a critical examination of the theoretical underpinnings of these inquiries and responses is needed. We conducted a systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to critically examine how the policy and scholarly literature conceptualises migrants' interactions with and experiences of the Australian health system. Guided by PRISMA, we searched for literature without imposing any limits. We also searched key State and Federal Government websites for relevant policy documents. Our initially broad inclusion criteria became refined as the CIS progressed. We prioritised the likely relevance and theoretical contribution of the papers to our inquiry over methodological quality. The CIS of 104 papers revealed that the Australian scholarly literature and policy documents consistently homogenise and reduce migrants according to an assumed, (1) cultural identity, (2) linguistic affiliation, and/or (3) broad geographic origin. Based on these three critiques and drawing on the theoretical literature, we propose a synthesising argument on how the Australian literature could better conceptualise migrants' experiences of the Australian health system. We contend that both research and policy should explicitly recognise and engage with the multifaceted and shifting ways that migrants define themselves, generally, and during their encounters with destination country health systems. Engagement with this notion is necessary for also understanding how aspects of migrants' identities are dynamically co-constructed during their interactions with the health system. These understandings have implications for improving the design and implementation of policies and programs directed at improving the responsiveness of Australia's health system to the needs and expectations of migrant communities specifically, and destination countries broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) remains a problem for most western countries. Failure to scale up effective interventions has been due, in part, to a failure to share the logic and essential elements of successful programs. The aim of this paper is to describe what we learned about improving access to PHC for vulnerable groups across multiple sites through use of a common theory-based program logic model and a common evaluation approach. This was the IMPACT initiative. Methods: IMPACT's evaluation used a mixed methods design with longitudinal (pre and post) analysis of six interventions. The analysis for this paper included four of the six sites that met study criteria. These sites were located in Canada (Alberta, Quebec and Ontario) and Australia (New South Wales). Using the overarching logic model, unexpected findings were reviewed, and alternative explanations were considered to understand how the mechanisms of each intervention may have contributed to results. Results: Each site addressed their local access problem with different strategies and from different starting points. All sites observed changes in patient abilities to access PHC and provider access capabilities. The combination of intended and observed consequences for consumers and providers was different at each site, but all sites achieved change in both consumer ability and provider capability, even in interventions where there was no activity targeting provider behaviors. Discussion: The model helped to identify, explore and synthesize intended and unintended consequences of four interventions that appeared to have more differences than similarities. Similar outcomes for different interventions and multiple impacts of each intervention on abilities were observed, implying complex causal pathways. Conclusions: All the interventions were a low-cost incremental attempt to address unmet health care needs of vulnerable populations. Change is possible; sustaining change may be more challenging. Access to PHC requires attention to both patient abilities and provider characteristics. The logic model proved to be a valuable heuristic tool for defining the objectives of the interventions, evaluating their impacts, and learning from the comparison of 'cases'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In hospitals globally, patient centred communication is difficult to practice, and interpreters are underused. Low uptake of interpreters is commonly attributed to limited interpreter availability, time constraints and that interpreter-medicated communication in healthcare is an aberration. In Australia's Northern Territory at Royal Darwin Hospital, it is estimated around 50% of Aboriginal patients would benefit from an interpreter, yet approximately 17% get access. Recognising this contributes to a culturally unsafe system, Royal Darwin Hospital and the NT Aboriginal Interpreter Service embedded interpreters in a renal team during medical ward rounds for 4 weeks in 2019. This paper explores the attitudinal and behavioural changes that occurred amongst non-Indigenous doctors and Aboriginal language interpreters during the pilot. Methods: This pilot was part of a larger Participatory Action Research study examining strategies to achieve culturally safe communication at Royal Darwin Hospital. Two Yolŋu and two Tiwi language interpreters were embedded in a team of renal doctors. Data sources included interviews with doctors, interpreters, and an interpreter trainer; reflective journals by doctors; and researcher field notes. Inductive thematic analysis, guided by critical theory, was conducted. Results: Before the pilot, frustrated doctors unable to communicate effectively with Aboriginal language speaking patients acknowledged their personal limitations and criticised hospital systems that prioritized perceived efficiency over interpreter access. During the pilot, knowledge of Aboriginal cultures improved and doctors adapted their work routines including lengthening the duration of bed side consults. Furthermore, attitudes towards culturally safe communication in the hospital changed: doctors recognised the limitations of clinically focussed communication and began prioritising patient needs and interpreters who previously felt unwelcome within the hospital reported feeling valued as skilled professionals. Despite these benefits, resistance to interpreter use remained amongst some members of the multi-disciplinary team. Conclusions: Embedding Aboriginal interpreters in a hospital renal team which services predominantly Aboriginal peoples resulted in the delivery of culturally competent care. By working with interpreters, non-Indigenous doctors were prompted to reflect on their attitudes which deepened their critical consciousness resulting in behaviour change. Scale up of learnings from this pilot to broader implementation in the health service is the current focus of ongoing implementation research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]