Search

Introduction: Prevalence of distress in cancer patients is established at approximately 50%, yet uptake of psychosocial support is minimal. Objective: This study aimed to understand why clinically distressed oncology patients choose not to access psychosocial support, including whether this differs by geographic location. It also aimed to determine the proportion of rural and metropolitan patients experiencing clinical levels of distress, and of these, the proportion who do not wish to access support. Design: The study used a cross‐sectional design. Two hundred and ninety‐eight Australian cancer patients completed an online survey, including the Distress Thermometer and open‐ended questions about reasons for declining support. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyse the data. Findings: More than half (56%) of participants reported experiencing clinically significant levels of distress. Of these, almost half (47%) declined psychosocial support. Content analysis of reasons for declining psychosocial support resulted in six main concepts: I don't need support; I'm using personal resources to cope; negative perceptions and attitudes; life doesn't stop for cancer; I'm focussed on fighting cancer; and systemic barriers. Rural cancer patients most often indicated using personal resources to cope, while metropolitan participants most commonly indicated not needing support. A range of subconcepts were also identified. Perceiving distress as manageable or transient was almost exclusively reported by metropolitan participants, while stigma was almost exclusively reported by rural participants. Discussion: The findings provided greater depth of insight into reasons cancer patients decline psychosocial support and identified several qualitative differences in the reasons provided by metropolitan and rural patients. Recommendations are provided for clinicians, in particular for clinicians who work with rural cancer patients and their supporters. Conclusion: These findings can inform equitable resourcing of psychosocial support in rural areas and the adaptation of psychosocial interventions to be more flexible and responsive to individual needs. This may help increase patient uptake of support, particularly in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the characteristics of hospital admissions for dental conditions, by Australian Statistical Geography Standard remoteness area for the 5 years 2010/2011 to 2014/2015. Design: Retrospective analysis of preventable hospital admissions due to dental conditions. Setting: National data set provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Participants: Every hospital admission for patients who were admitted for dental conditions over five financial years, from 2010/2011 to 2014/2015. Main outcome measures: The number (and rate per 1000 population) of hospital admissions due to dental conditions in each Australian Statistical Geography Standard remoteness area (major city, inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote). Results: There were 316 937 hospital admissions for dental conditions over the 5‐year period. The rate of potentially preventable dental hospital admissions ranged from an average of 2.5 per 1000 population in major cities to 3.2 in inner regional areas, 3.1 in outer regional areas, and 4.1 per 1000 in remote and very remote areas. The rate of admissions was highest among those aged 0‐14 years living in remote (9.0‐10.0 per 1000) and very remote (9.8‐12.5 per 1000) areas. Dental caries was the most common reason for admissions. Conclusions: There is an urgent need to address the social determinants of oral health in children aged 0‐14 years living in remote and very remote Australia. The delivery of mobile primary dental care services needs to be expanded in remote and very remote areas to prevent and treat dental caries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess temporal trends in service provision by Accredited Exercise Physiologists based on remoteness classification using Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness classifications of Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. Design and participants: Cross‐sectional analysis of publicly available Medicare Benefits Schedule datasets, for Medicare item number 10953 from 2012‐2013 to 2016‐2017. Main outcome measure(s): Number of claims, benefits paid, fees charges and number of providers for Medicare item number 10953. Results: Accredited Exercise Physiologist service delivery demonstrates growth across all areas of remoteness classification. Rebates and fees mirror service delivery trends. The rate of service growth was significantly greater in Major Cities compared with all other remoteness classifications. Provider numbers show a steady increase from 2012‐2013 to 2016‐2017 but number remains higher in Major Cities compared with all other remoteness locations. Conclusion: Given the high proportion of chronic and complex illness in rural and remote areas, and the limited access to allied health care services, we propose more needs to be done to position Accredited Exercise Physiologists in these regions of increasing need. These findings have implications for future development of the Accredited Exercise Physiologist profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the prevalence and clinical management characteristics of chiropractors practising in urban and rural or remote Australia. Design: A cross‐sectional analysis of the Australian Chiropractic Research Network project data. Setting: Nationally representative sample of registered chiropractors practising in Australia. Participants: Chiropractors who participated in the Australian Chiropractic Research Network project and answered a question about practising in urban or rural or remote areas in the practitioner questionnaire. Main outcome measure: The demographics, practice characteristics and clinical management of chiropractors. Results: The majority of chiropractors indicated that they practise in urban areas only, while 22.8% (n = 435) practice in rural or remote areas only and 4.0% (n = 77) practice in both urban and rural or remote areas. Statistically significant predictors of chiropractors who practice in rural or remote areas, as compared to urban areas, included more patient visits per week, practising in more than one location, no imaging facilities on site, often treating degenerative spinal conditions or migraine, often treating people aged over 65 years, frequently treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and frequently using biomechanical pelvic blocking or the sacro‐occipital technique. Conclusion: A substantial number of chiropractors practice in rural or remote Australia and these rural or remote‐based chiropractors are more likely to treat a wide range of musculoskeletal cases and include an Indigenously diverse group of patients than their urban‐located colleagues. Unique practice challenges for rural or remote chiropractors include a higher workload and a lack of diagnostic tools. Chiropractors should be acknowledged and considered within rural or remote health care policy and service provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]