Search

Background: Mobile clinics have been used to deliver primary health care to populations that otherwise experience difficulty in accessing services. Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States experience greater health inequities than non-Indigenous populations. There is increasing support for Indigenous-governed and culturally accessible primary health care services which meet the needs of Indigenous populations. There is some support for primary health care mobile clinics implemented specifically for Indigenous populations to improve health service accessibility. The purpose of this review is to scope the literature for evidence of mobile primary health care clinics implemented specifically for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Methods: This review was undertaken using the Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Review objectives, inclusion criteria and methods were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol. The search included five academic databases and an extensive search of the grey literature. Results: The search resulted in 1350 unique citations, with 91 of these citations retrieved from the grey literature and targeted organisational websites. Title, abstract and full-text screening was conducted independently by two reviewers, with 123 citations undergoing full text review. Of these, 39 citations discussing 25 mobile clinics, met the inclusion criteria. An additional 14 citations were snowballed from a review of the reference lists of included citations. Of these 25 mobile clinics, the majority were implemented in Australia (n = 14), followed by United States (n = 6) and Canada (n = 5). No primary health mobile clinics specifically for Indigenous people in New Zealand were retrieved. There was a pattern of declining locations serviced by mobile clinics with an increasing population. Furthermore, only 13 mobile clinics had some form of evaluation. Conclusions: This review identifies geographical gaps in the implementation of primary health care mobile clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. There is a paucity of evaluations supporting the use of mobile clinics for Indigenous populations and a need for organisations implementing mobile clinics specifically for Indigenous populations to share their experiences. Engaging with the perspectives of Indigenous people accessing mobile clinic services is imperative to future evaluations. Registration: The protocol for this review has been peer-reviewed and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis (doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00057). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Targeted chronic disease programs are vital to improving health outcomes for Indigenous people globally. In Australia it is not known where evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been implemented. This scoping review geographically examines where evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal people have been implemented in the Australian primary health care setting. Secondary objectives include scoping programs for evidence of partnerships with Aboriginal organisations, and use of ethical protocols. By doing so, geographical gaps in the literature and variations in ethical approaches to conducting program evaluations are highlighted.Methods: The objectives, inclusion criteria and methods for this scoping review were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol. This scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. The search included 11 academic databases, clinical trial registries, and the grey literature.Results: The search resulted in 6894 citations, with 241 retrieved from the grey literature and targeted organisation websites. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was conducted by two independent reviewers, with 314 citations undergoing full review. Of these, 74 citations evaluating 50 programs met the inclusion criteria. Of the programs included in the geographical analysis (n = 40), 32.1% were implemented in Major Cities and 29.6% in Very Remote areas of Australia. A smaller proportion of programs were delivered in Inner Regional (12.3%), Outer Regional (18.5%) and Remote areas (7.4%) of Australia. Overall, 90% (n = 45) of the included programs collaborated with an Aboriginal organisation in the implementation and/or evaluation of the program. Variation in the use of ethical guidelines and protocols in the evaluation process was evident.Conclusions: A greater focus on the evaluation of chronic disease programs for Aboriginal people residing in Inner and Outer Regional areas, and Remote areas of Australia is required. Across all geographical areas further efforts should be made to conduct evaluations in partnership with Aboriginal communities residing in the geographical region of program implementation. The need for more scientifically and ethically rigorous approaches to Aboriginal health program evaluations is evident. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]