Search

Simple Summary: The current evidence regarding Indigenous* women and breast cancer in Australia shows lower prevalence but higher mortality rates. There are a range of reasons for this, including co-morbidities, lack of access to health services and low health information fluency. Perhaps most importantly, breast cancer health policy and service delivery practice do not meet the needs of Indigenous women in Australia, according to Indigenous women. Talking and listening to Indigenous women about breast cancer highlight that the solutions to improve breast cancer outcomes are available and that they are not complex. Indigenous women must be involved in the improvement of policy and practice in order for these outcomes to improve. *Terminology: We respectfully refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as "Indigenous". In Australia, the incidence rate of breast cancer is lower in Indigenous* women than non-Indigenous women; however, the mortality rate is higher, with Indigenous women 1.2 times more likely to die from the disease. This paper provides practical and achievable solutions to improve health outcomes for Indigenous women with breast cancer in Australia. This research employed the Context–Mechanism–Outcome (CMO) framework to reveal potential mechanisms and contextual factors that influence breast cancer outcomes for Indigenous women, stratified into multiple levels, namely, micro (interpersonal), meso (systemic) and macro (policy) levels. The CMO framework allowed us to interpret evidence regarding Indigenous women and breast cancer and provides nine practical ways to improve health outcomes and survival rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]