Search

Background: Maternity services have limited formalised guidance on planning new services such as midwifery group practice for vulnerable women, for example women with a history of substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs), mental health challenges, complex social issues or other vulnerability. Continuity of care through midwifery group practice is mostly restricted to women with low-risk pregnancies and is not universally available to vulnerable women, despite evidence supporting benefits of this model of care for all women. The perception that midwifery group practice for vulnerable women is a high-risk model of care lacking in evidence may have in the past, thwarted implementation planning studies that seek to improve care for these women. We therefore aimed to identify the barriers and enablers that might impact the implementation of a midwifery group practice for vulnerable women.Methods: A qualitative context analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was conducted at a single-site tertiary health facility in Queensland, Australia. An interdisciplinary group of stakeholders from a purposeful sample of 31 people participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using manual and then Leximancer computer assisted methods. Themes were compared and mapped to the Framework.Results: Themes identified were the woman's experience, midwifery workforce capabilities, identifying "gold standard care", the interdisciplinary team and costs. Potential enablers of implementation included perceptions that the model facilitates a relationship of trust with vulnerable women, that clinical benefit outweighs cost and universal stakeholder acceptance. Potential barriers were: potential isolation of the interdisciplinary team, costs and the potential for vicarious trauma for midwives.Conclusion: There was recognition that the proposed model of care is supported by research and a view that clinical benefits will outweigh costs, however supervision and support is required for midwives to manage and limit vicarious trauma. An interdisciplinary team structure is also an essential component of the service design. Attention to these key themes, barriers and enablers will assist with identification of strategies to aid successful implementation. Australian maternity services can use our results to compare how the perceptions of local stakeholders might be similar or different to the results presented in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health disorders are a global health concern. In Australia, numerous national reports have found that the current mental healthcare system does not adequately meet the needs of Australians with mental illness. Consequently, a greater understanding of how people with a mental health disorder are using the broader healthcare system is needed. The aim of this paper is to explore conventional and complementary health care use and expenditure among Australian adults reporting a mental health disorder diagnosis.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of 2,019 Australian adults examined socio-demographic characteristics, complementary and conventional health care use and the health status of participants.Results: 32 % (n = 641) of the total sample (N = 2019) reported a mental health disorder in the previous 3 years. Of these, 96 % reported consulting a general practitioner, 90.6 % reported using prescription medicines, 42.4 % consulted a complementary medicine practitioner, 56.9 % used a complementary medicine product and 23 % used a complementary medicine practice. The estimated 12-month out-of-pocket health care expenditure among Australians with a mental health disorder was AUD$ 4,568,267,421 (US$ 3,398,293,672) for conventional health care practitioners and medicines, and AUD$ 1,183,752,486 (US$ 880,729,891) for complementary medicine practitioners, products and practices. Older people (50-59 and 60 and over) were less likely to consult a CM practitioner (OR = 0.538, 95% CI [0.373, 0.775]; OR = 0.398, 95% CI [0.273, 0.581] respectively) or a psychologist/counsellor (OR = 0.394, 95% CI [0.243, 0.639]; OR = 0.267, 95% CI [0.160, 0.447] respectively). People either looking for work or not in the workforce were less likely to visit a CM practitioner (OR = 0.298, 95% CI [0.194, 0.458]; OR = 0.476, 95% CI [0.353, 0.642], respectively).Conclusions: A substantial proportion of Australian adults living with a mental health disorder pay for both complementary and conventional health care directly out-of-pocket. This finding suggests improved coordination of healthcare services is needed for individuals living with a mental health disorder. Research examining the redesign of primary health care provision should also consider whether complementary medicine practitioners and/or integrative health care service delivery models could play a role in addressing risks associated with complementary medicine use and the unmet needs of people living with a mental health disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]