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]

To identify the patient classification systems used to classify nursing intensity in the assessment of nursing staffing resources currently used in home health care, with a special emphasis on validity, reliability and staff allocation. Scoping review of internationally published and grey literature, based on a methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley. Searches of the electronic databases Cinahl, Medline, Embase and SweMed, the websites Google and Google Scholar and hand searches of reference lists occurred. Eligibility criteria included (A) a focus on patient classification systems measuring nursing intensity and workload in home health care and (B) published in English between January 2007 and March 2019. In level one testing two team members screened titles and abstracts, in level two testing two team members determined which papers should undergo a full text review. Data were extracted using structured extraction by one team member and verified by two other members. Thirteen peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents were identified, from Canada, Ireland, the UK, the USA, Scotland, Turkey and the Netherlands. Four patient classification systems had been tested for both validity and reliability. Validity was tested through face validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity or content validity index. Reliability was tested through stability, internal consistency, observer agreement or inter rater reliability. One patient classification system had been tested only for reliability, through interrater reliability and observer agreement. Two patient classification systems had been evaluated through summative evaluation; one qualitatively through focus group interviews and one through semi-structured interviews. Only one patient classification system had been validity and reliability tested and evaluated. Overall, the patient classification systems in the included papers (13) were considered to have benefits and to be appropriate for the measurement of patients' needs, workload and allocation of staff, although specific information was not always given. Little has been published on validity or reliability tested patient classification systems linked to staffing allocation in home health care in the past decade. Limited research was seen where a patient classification system was considered to be fully operational in home health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]