Search

Introduction: Australians in rural and remote areas experience poorer health status compared with many metropolitan residents, due partly to inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) services. Building on recent research that identified PHC services which all Australians should be able to access regardless of where they live, this paper aims to define the population thresholds governing which PHC services would be best provided by a resident health worker, and to outline attendant implementation issues. Methods: A Delphi method comprising panellists with expertise in rural, remote and/or Indigenous PHC was used. Five population thresholds reflecting Australia's diverse rural and remote geography were devised. Panellists participated in two electronic surveys. Using a Likert scale, they were asked at what population threshold each PHC service should be provided by a resident health worker. A follow-up focus group identified important underlying principles which guided the consensus process. Results: Response rates were high. The population thresholds for core PHC services provided by a resident worker were less in remote communities compared with rural communities. For example, the population threshold for 'care of the sick and injured,' was ≤ 100 for remote compared with 101-500 for rural communities. For 'mental health', 'maternal/ child health', 'sexual health' and 'public health' services in remote communities the population threshold was 101-500, compared to 501-1000 for rural communities. Principles underpinning implementation included the fundamental importance of equity; consideration of social determinants of health; flexibility, effective expenditure of resources, tailoring services to ensure consumer acceptability, prioritising services according to need, and providing services as close to home as possible. Conclusion: This research can assist policy makers and service planners to determine the population thresholds at which PHC services should be delivered by a resident health worker, to allocate resources and provide services more equitably, and inform consumers about PHC services they can reasonably expect to access in their community. This framework assists in developing a systematic approach to strategies seeking to address existing rural-urban health workforce maldistribution, including the training of generalists as opposed to specialists, and providing necessary infrastructure in communities most in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Health Organization has endorsed the use of outreach to promote: efficient redeployment of the health-care workforce; continuity of care at the local level; and professional support for local, rural, health-care workers. Australia is the only country that has had, since 2000, a sustained national policy on outreach for subsidizing medical specialist outreach to rural areas. This paper describes the adoption, implementation and prioritization of a national specialist outreach policy in Australia. Adoption of the national policy followed a long history of successful outreach, largely driven by the professional interest and personal commitment of the workforce. Initially the policy supported only new outreach services but concerns about the sustainability of existing services resulted in eligibility for funding being extended to all specialist services. The costs of travel, travel time, accommodation, professional support, staff relief at specialists’ primary practices and equipment hire were subsidized. Over time, a national political commitment to the equitable treatment of indigenous people resulted in more targeted support for outreach in remote areas. Current priorities are: (i) establishing team-based outreach services; (ii) improving local staff’s skills; (iii) achieving local coordination; and (iv) conducting a nationally consistent needs assessment. The absence of subsidies for specialists’ clinical work can discourage private specialists from providing services in remote areas where clinical throughput is low. To be successful, outreach policy must harmonize with the interests of the workforce and support professional autonomy. Internationally, the development of outreach policy must take account of the local pay and practice conditions of health workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Utilisation of radiation therapy for regional Australia and around the world has been the focus of much health policy the last decade. Radiation therapy centres have been built in Australian regional and rural areas to improve access to radiation therapy and reduce the tyranny of distance as a barrier to access. After this the enablers, barriers and perceptions of patients has been evaluated to determine utilisation once centres have been built. Thisreview looks the impact of rural radiation services in the developed world, barriers and enablers of establishing a rural radiation centre, and patients' and service providers' perspectives and preferences around the uptake of rural radiation therapy.Methods: Online search of peer reviewed literature was undertaken using MeSH terms relating to the topic. Inclusion criteria were regional radiation therapy centres in developing countries, any year of publication, in English, and qualitative or quantitative methodologies. Articles were reviewed by two authors with conflicts discussed with a third.Results: Twenty three studies addressed the theme directly. Distance barriers have been overcome by building regional centres and health economic burden was lower for government service providers with this strategy. However distance still plays an important role in influencing uptake of radiation therapy. Cultural expectations, influence of the family doctor and perception of care was influential. Carer support, duration of displacement from home, financial impact of the required care and seasonal weather were practical factors on a patient's decision.Conclusions: Regional radiation therapy centres have improved access to radiation therapy in developing countries. However the complex nuances between socio-economic, cultural and health system factors that influence regional patient's decision making bears further consideration, as distance is not the only issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited research exists on the process of applying knowledge translation (KT) methodology to a rural-based population health intervention.Methods: This study reports on the implementation and translational stages of a previously described Co-creating KT (Co-KT) framework in the rural town of Port Lincoln, South Australia (population: 14,000). The Co-KT framework involves five steps: (i) collecting local data; (ii) building stakeholder relationships; (iii) designing an evidence-based intervention incorporating local knowledge; (iv) implementation and evaluation of the intervention; and (v) translating the research into policy and practice. Barriers and enablers to the overall Co-KT implementation process were identified. Our intervention focused on musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.Results: Although the Co-KT framework was valuable in engaging with the community, translating the final intervention into daily clinical practice was prevented by a lack of an accessible policy or financial framework to anchor the appropriate intervention, a lack of continued engagement with stakeholders, access problems to general practitioners (GPs) and Allied Health Professionals; and the paucity of referrals from GPs to Allied Health Professionals. Consequently, while many aspects of the intervention were successful, including the improvement of both function and pain in study participants, the full implementation of the Co-KT framework was not possible.Discussion: This study implemented and evaluated a Co-KT framework for a population with MSK conditions, linking locally generated health care system knowledge with academic input. Further policy, health system changes, and on-the-ground support are needed to overcome the identified implementation challenges in order to create sustainable and effective system change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]