Search

Background: Organisational health literacy is a promising area of research that enables a focus on how systems and services can be designed in ways that are responsive to populations with varying states and levels of health literacy, knowledge, and practices, including African refugees. The challenge is how organisations and professionals do this in practice, and research in this area is in its early stages. This qualitative study examined barriers to implementing health literacy responsive care practices in primary health care settings in Australia. It also offered suggestions to potentially address the barriers to improving organisational health literacy. Methods: Refugees (n = 19), primary health care professionals (n = 14), and other key stakeholders (n = 19) were recruited through convenience and snowball strategies from three states in Australia: New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland. All but one participant was interviewed face-to-face via Zoom. Semi-structured interview guides were used to guide the conversations. Transcriptions from audio recordings were analysed using directed content analysis. Results: Thirteen themes were extracted from the data. Themes were organised into the following categories: structural and systemic, organisational context, individual professional level, individual patient level, and socio-community level. Major structural and system-level factors affecting organisational health literacy included rigid systems and structures and limited time. Key organisation-level factors included inflexible organisational processes and policies, institutionalised othering, discrimination and racism, and lack of interpreters. Individual professional factors were poor communication with patients and cultural knowledge gaps. Linguistic issues and service mistrust were key individual patient-level factors. Socio-community factors included limited community engagement. Participants identified potential solutions to help services navigate out of the barriers and improve their response to health literacy. Conclusion: The findings suggest that mainstream services and organisations could improve timely and appropriate health care access and utilisation for refugees through strategies such as designing services and health literacy programs with refugee communities, promoting health literacy champions in the workforce, integrating health literacy and culturally responsive care plans and strategies into organisational priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The linkage of primary care, hospital and other health registry data is a global goal, and a consent-based approach is often used. Understanding the attitudes of why participants take part is important, yet little is known about reasons for non-participation. The ATHENA COVID-19 feasibility study investigated: 1) health outcomes of people diagnosed with COVID-19 in Queensland, Australia through primary care health data linkage using consent, and 2) created a cohort of patients willing to be re-contacted in future to participate in clinical trials. This report describes the characteristics of participants declining to participate and reasons for non-consent. Methods: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from January 1st, 2020, to December 31st, 2020, were invited to consent to having their primary healthcare data extracted from their GP into a Queensland Health database and linked to other data sets for ethically approved research. Patients were also asked to consent to future recontact for participation in clinical trials. Outcome measures were proportions of patients consenting to data extraction, permission to recontact, and reason for consent decline. Results: Nine hundred and ninety-five participants were approached and 842(85%) reached a consent decision. 581(69%), 615(73%) and 629(75%) consented to data extraction, recontact, or both, respectively. Mean (range) age of consenters and non-consenters were 50.6(22-77) and 46.1(22-77) years, respectively. Adjusting for age, gender and remoteness, older participants were more likely to consent than younger (aOR 1.02, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.03). The least socio-economically disadvantaged were more likely to consent than the most disadvantaged (aOR 2.20, 95% 1.33 to 3.64). There was no difference in consent proportions regarding gender or living in more remote regions. The main reasons for non-consent were 'not interested in research' (37%), 'concerns about privacy' (15%), 'not registered with a GP' (8%) and 'too busy/no time' (7%). 'No reason' was given in 20%. Conclusion: Younger participants and the more socio-economically deprived are more likely to non-consent to primary care data linkage. Lack of patient interest in research, time required to participate and privacy concerns, were the most common reasons cited for non-consent. Future health care data linkage studies addressing these issues may prove helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]