Search

Objective: Living in regional/rural areas can impact outcomes for people with head and neck cancer (HNC). Using a comprehensive state‐wide dataset, the impact of remoteness on key service parameters and outcomes for people with HNC was examined. Methods: Retrospective quantitative analysis of routinely collected data held within the Queensland Oncology Repository. Design: Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic regression and geospatial analysis). Setting: All people diagnosed with HNC in Queensland, Australia. Participants: The impact of remoteness was examined in 1991 people (1171 metropolitan, 485 inner‐regional, 335 rural) with HNC cancer diagnosed between 2013 and 2015. Main Outcome Measures: This paper reports key demographics and tumour characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, First Nations status, co‐morbidities, primary tumour site and staging), service use/uptake (treatment rates, attendance at multidisciplinary team review and timing to treatment) and post‐acute outcomes (readmission rates, causes of readmission and 2‐year survival). In addition to this, the distribution of people with HNC across QLD, distances travelled and patterns of readmission were also analysed. Results: Regression analysis revealed remoteness significantly (p < 0.001) impacted access to MDT review, receiving treatment, and time to treatment commencement, but not readmission or 2‐year survival. Reasons for readmission did not differ by remoteness, with dysphagia, nutritional inadequacies, gastrointestinal disorders and fluid imbalance indicated in the majority of readmissions. Rural people were significantly (p < 0.0001) more likely to travel to care and to readmit to a different facility than provided primary treatment. Conclusions: This study provides new insights into the health care disparities for people with HNC residing in regional/rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to report on enablers and barriers during the first 2 years of the health systems integration project that included the implementation of a health navigator role. The project aims to improve health outcomes for children and young people residing in out of home care in rural Australia with a health navigator co‐located between child protection practitioners and community health services clinicians. Setting: Rural Northwest Victoria. Participants: Sunraysia Community Health Services and the Department of Health and Human Services. Design: The qualitative design of the project evaluation involved semi‐structured interviews and documentary evidence analysis. Analyses of interviews and documentary data demonstrate the challenging nature of siloed service delivery in rural Australia, particularly during a time that comprised multiple interruptions due to COVID‐19. Results: A limited synergy between organisational priorities and reporting systems hindered project progress. The lack of a shared definition of 'health' challenged the effective collaboration between health clinicians and child protection practitioners and the role of the health navigator. The health navigator raising health awareness through project involvement, training and sector‐wide stakeholder engagement resulted in a slow but steady process of increased prioritisation of health care, increased health literacy among the child protection workforce, and broadening participation of area‐based stakeholders, but did not translate to increased access to health plans for children. Conclusion: Integrating health systems across multiple sites with support of a health navigator revealed difficulties, particularly during COVID‐19. The first phase of the project demonstrated the value of shared governance and partnerships as an imperative foundation for fundamental change. Relationships strengthened throughout the project, leading to a better understanding of area‐based strengths, which in turn supports improved pathways to health care for children and young people in OOHC within rural communities and driving the subsequent phases of the 10‐year project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rural‐urban health inequities, exacerbated by deprivation and ethnicity, have been clearly described in the international literature. To date, the same inequities have not been as clearly demonstrated in Aotearoa New Zealand despite the lower socioeconomic status and higher proportion of Māori living in rural towns. This is ascribed by many health practitioners, academics and other informed stakeholders to be the result of the definitions of 'rural' used to produce statistics. Aims: To outline a protocol to produce a 'fit‐for‐health purpose' rural‐urban classification for analysing national health data. The classification will be designed to determine the magnitude of health inequities that have been obscured by use of inappropriate rural‐urban taxonomies. Methods: This protocol paper outlines our proposed mixed‐methods approach to developing a novel Geographic Classification for Health. In phase 1, an agreed set of community attributes will be used to modify the new Statistics New Zealand Urban Accessibility Classification into a more appropriate classification of rurality for health contexts. The Geographic Classification for Health will then be further developed in an iterative process with stakeholders including rural health researchers and members of the National Rural Health Advisory Group, who have a comprehensive 'on the ground' understanding of Aotearoa New Zealand's rural communities and their attendant health services. This protocol also proposes validating the Geographic Classification for Health using general practice enrolment data. In phase 2, the resulting Geographic Classification for Health will be applied to routinely collected data from the Ministry of Health. This will enable current levels of rural‐urban inequity in health service access and outcomes to be accurately assessed and give an indication of the extent to which older classifications were masking inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]