Search

Background: People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included.Methods: An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.Results: Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations.Conclusions: This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Access to rural health services is compromised in many countries including Australia due to workforce shortages. The issues that consequently impact on equity of access and sustainability of rural and remote health services are complex.Discussion: The purpose of this paper is to describe a number of approaches from the literature that could form the basis of a more integrated approach to health workforce and rural health service enhancement that can be supported by policy. A case study is used to demonstrate how such an approach could work. Disjointed health services are common in rural areas due to the 'tyranny of distance.' Recruitment and retention of health professionals in rural areas and access to and sustainability of rural health services is therefore compromised. Strategies to address these issues tend to have a narrow focus. An integrated approach is needed to enhance rural workforce and health services; one that develops, acknowledges and accounts for social capital and social relations within the rural community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: Rural residents have poorer oral health and more limited access to dental services than their city counterparts. In rural communities, health care professionals often work in an extended capacity due to the needs of the community and health workforce shortages in these areas. Improved links and greater collaboration between resident rural primary care and dental practitioners could help improve oral health service provision such that interventions are both timely, effective and lead to appropriate follow-up and referral. This study examined the impact oral health problems had on primary health care providers; how primary care networks could be more effectively utilised to improve the provision of oral health services to rural communities; and identified strategies that could be implemented to improve oral health.Methods: Case studies of 14 rural communities across three Australian states. Between 2013 and 2016, 105 primary and 12 dental care providers were recruited and interviewed. Qualitative data were analysed in Nvivo 10 using thematic analysis. Quantitative data were subject to descriptive analysis using SPSSv20.Results: Rural residents presented to primary care providers with a range of oral health problems from "everyday" to "10 per month". Management by primary care providers commonly included short-term pain relief, antibiotics, and advice that the patient see a dentist. The communication between non-dental primary care providers and visiting or regional dental practitioners was limited. Participants described a range of strategies that could contribute to better oral health and oral health oral services in their communities.Conclusions: Rural oral health could be improved by building oral health capacity of non-dental care providers; investing in oral health promotion and prevention activities; introducing more flexible service delivery practices to meet the dental needs of both public and private patients; and establishing more effective communication and referral pathways between rural primary and visiting/regional dental care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of the study is to explore the reasons why specialist doctors travel to provide regular rural outreach services, and whether reasons relate to (1) salaried or private fee-for-service practice and (2) providing rural outreach services in more remote locations.Methods: A national cross-sectional study of specialist doctors from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) survey in 2014 was implemented. Specialists providing rural outreach services self-reported on a 5-point scale their level of agreement with five reasons for participating. Chi-squared analysis tested association between agreement and variables of interest.Results: Of 567 specialists undertaking rural outreach services, reasons for participating include to grow the practice (54%), maintain a regional connection (26%), provide complex healthcare (18%), healthcare for disadvantaged people (12%) and support rural staff (6%). Salaried specialists more commonly participated to grow the practice compared with specialists in fee-for-service practice (68 vs 49%). This reason was also related to travelling further and providing outreach services in outer regional/remote locations. Private fee-for-service specialists more commonly undertook outreach services to provide complex healthcare (22 vs 14%).Conclusions: Specialist doctors undertake rural outreach services for a range of reasons, mainly to complement the growth and diversity of their main practice or maintain a regional connection. Structuring rural outreach around the specialist's main practice is likely to support participation and improve service distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]