Search

Abstract Background Geographical context is an important consideration for health system design to promote equality in access to care for patients with childhood heart disease (CHD), particularly those living in regional, rural, and remote areas. To help inform future policy and practice recommendations, this study aimed to (i) describe the geographic distribution of high-risk CHD patients accessing an Australian state-wide specialist service and (ii) estimate travel time for accessing healthcare via general practitioners (primary), nearest paediatric centre (secondary) and specialist paediatric cardiac centre (tertiary). Methods Participants included a cohort of children (0–18 year) who accessed state-wide specialist CHD services over a 3-year period (2019–2021) in Queensland, Australia. Locations for patient residence, general practitioner, closest paediatric centre and tertiary cardiac centre were mapped using geographical information system (GIS) software (ArcGIS Online). Travel distance and times were estimated using a Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). Results 1019 patients (median age 3.8 years) had cardiac intervention and were included in the sample. Of this cohort, 30.2% lived outside the heavily urbanised South East Queensland (SEQ) area where the tertiary centre is located. These patients travel substantially further and longer to access tertiary level care (but not secondary or primary level care) compared to those in SEQ. Median distance for patients residing outside SEQ to access tertiary care was 953 km with a travel time of 10 h 43 min. This compares to 5.5 km to the general practitioner and 20.6 km to a paediatric service (8.9 and 54 min respectively). Conclusion This geographical mapping of CHD services has demonstrated a key challenge inherent in providing specialist cardiac care to children in a large state-based healthcare system. A significant proportion of high-risk patients live large distances from tertiary level care. The greater accessibility of primary care services highlights the importance of supporting primary care physicians outside metropolitan areas to acquire or build the ability and capacity to care for children with CHD. Strengthening local primary and secondary services not only has the potential to improve the outcomes of high-risk patients, but also to reduce costs and burden associated with potentially avoidable travel from regional, rural, or remote areas to access specialist CHD services.

Background: Geographical context is an important consideration for health system design to promote equality in access to care for patients with childhood heart disease (CHD), particularly those living in regional, rural, and remote areas. To help inform future policy and practice recommendations, this study aimed to (i) describe the geographic distribution of high-risk CHD patients accessing an Australian state-wide specialist service and (ii) estimate travel time for accessing healthcare via general practitioners (primary), nearest paediatric centre (secondary) and specialist paediatric cardiac centre (tertiary). Methods: Participants included a cohort of children (0–18 year) who accessed state-wide specialist CHD services over a 3-year period (2019–2021) in Queensland, Australia. Locations for patient residence, general practitioner, closest paediatric centre and tertiary cardiac centre were mapped using geographical information system (GIS) software (ArcGIS Online). Travel distance and times were estimated using a Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). Results: 1019 patients (median age 3.8 years) had cardiac intervention and were included in the sample. Of this cohort, 30.2% lived outside the heavily urbanised South East Queensland (SEQ) area where the tertiary centre is located. These patients travel substantially further and longer to access tertiary level care (but not secondary or primary level care) compared to those in SEQ. Median distance for patients residing outside SEQ to access tertiary care was 953 km with a travel time of 10 h 43 min. This compares to 5.5 km to the general practitioner and 20.6 km to a paediatric service (8.9 and 54 min respectively). Conclusion: This geographical mapping of CHD services has demonstrated a key challenge inherent in providing specialist cardiac care to children in a large state-based healthcare system. A significant proportion of high-risk patients live large distances from tertiary level care. The greater accessibility of primary care services highlights the importance of supporting primary care physicians outside metropolitan areas to acquire or build the ability and capacity to care for children with CHD. Strengthening local primary and secondary services not only has the potential to improve the outcomes of high-risk patients, but also to reduce costs and burden associated with potentially avoidable travel from regional, rural, or remote areas to access specialist CHD services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ensuring healthcare systems provide equitable, high quality care is critical to their users' overall health and wellbeing. Typically, systems use various performance frameworks and related indicators to monitor and improve healthcare. Although these frameworks usually include equity, the extent that equity is reflected in these measurements remains unclear. In order to create a system that meets patients' needs, addressing this uncertainty is important. This paper presents findings from a scoping review that sought to answer the question 'How is equity conceptualized in healthcare systems when assessing healthcare system performance?'. Methods: Levac's scoping review approach was used to locate relevant articles and create a protocol. Included, peer-reviewed articles were published between 2015 to 2020, written in English and did not discuss oral health and clinician training. These healthcare areas were excluded as they represent large, specialized bodies of literature beyond the scope of this review. Online databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus) were used to locate articles. Results: Eight thousand six hundred fifty-five potentially relevant articles were identified. Fifty-four were selected for full review. The review yielded 16 relevant articles. Six articles emanated from North America, six from Europe and one each from Africa, Australia, China and India respectively. Most articles used quantitative methods and examined various aspects of healthcare. Studies centered on: indicators; equity policies; evaluating the equitability of healthcare systems; creating and/or testing equity tools; and using patients' sociodemographic characteristics to examine healthcare system performance. Conclusion: Although equity is framed as an important component of most healthcare systems' performance frameworks, the scarcity of relevant articles indicate otherwise. This scarcity may point to challenges systems face when moving from conceptualizing to measuring equity. Additionally, it may indicate the limited attention systems place on effectively incorporating equity into performance frameworks. The disjointed and varied approaches to conceptualizing equity noted in relevant articles make it difficult to conduct comparative analyses of these frameworks. Further, these frameworks' strong focus on users' social determinants of health does not offer a robust view of performance. More work is needed to shift these narrow views of equity towards frameworks that analyze healthcare systems and not their users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nigeria and Ghana have recently introduced a National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) with the aim of moving towards universal health care using more equitable financing mechanisms. This study compares health and economic indicators, describes the structure of each country's NHIS within the wider healthcare system, and analyses impacts on equity in financing and access to health care. Methods: The World Bank and other sources were used to provide comparative health and economic data. Pubmed, Embase and EconLit were searched to locate studies providing descriptions of each NHIS and empirical evidence regarding equity in financing and access to health care. A diagrammatical representation of revenue-raising, pooling, purchasing and provision was produced in order to analyse the two countries' systems. Results: Over the period 2000-2010, Ghana maintained a marked advantage in life expectancy, infant mortality,under-5 year mortality, and has a lower burden of major diseases. Health care expenditure is about 5% of GDP in both countries but public expenditure in 2010 was 38% of total expenditure in Nigeria and 60% in Ghana. Financing and access are less equitable in Nigeria as, inter alia, private out-of-pocket expenditure has fallen from 80% to 66% of total spending in Ghana since the introduction of its NHIS but has remained at over 90% in Nigeria; NHIS membership in Nigeria and Ghana is approximately 3.5% and 65%, respectively; Nigeria offers a variable benefits package depending on membership category while Ghana has uniform benefits across all beneficiaries. Both countries exhibit improvements in equity but there is a pro-rich and pro-urban bias in membership. Conclusions: Major health indicators are more favourable in Ghana and overall equity in financing and access are weaker in Nigeria. Nigeria is taking steps to expand NHIS membership and has potential to expand its public spending to achieve greater equity. However, heavy burdens of poverty, disease and remote settings make this a substantial challenge. Ghana's relative success has to be tempered by the high number of exemptions through taxation and the threat of moral hazard. The results and methods are anticipated to be informative for policy makers and researchers in both countries and other developing countries more widely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]