Search

A strong First Nations health workforce is necessary to meet community needs, health rights, and health equity. This paper reports the findings from a national survey of Australia's First Nations people employed in health services to identify enablers and barriers to career development, including variations by geographic location and organisation type. A cross-sectional online survey was undertaken across professions, roles, and jurisdictions. The survey was developed collaboratively by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal academics and Aboriginal leaders. To recruit participants, the survey was promoted by key professional organisations, First Nations peak bodies and affiliates, and national forums. In addition to descriptive statistics, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of satisfaction with career development and whether this varied by geographic location or organisation type. Of the 332 participants currently employed in health services, 50% worked in regional and remote areas and 15% in Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) with the remainder in government and private health services. All enablers identified were associated with satisfaction with career development and did not vary by location or organisation type. "Racism from colleagues" and "lack of cultural awareness," "not feeling supported by their manager," "not having role models or mentors," and "inflexible human resource policies" predicted lower satisfaction with career development only for those employed in government/other services. First Nations people leading career development were strongly supported. The implications for all workplaces are that offering even a few career development opportunities, together with supporting leadership by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, can make a major difference to satisfaction and retention. Concurrently, attention should be given to building managerial cultural capabilities and skills in supporting First Nations' staff career development, building cultural safety, providing formal mentors and addressing discriminatory and inflexible human resources policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well documented that lower socio-economic status is associated with poorer health outcomes, while health literacy is considered important for improving health. What is less clear, is the extent to which greater health literacy can improve health outcomes among people for whom poverty or financial insecurity are important barriers to health. The paper presents findings from an Australian survey of people living with HIV (PLHIV) (N = 835) in which we explored the relationship between financial insecurity and health outcomes, looking at the extent to which health literacy mediates this relationship. The study drew on a comprehensive definition of health literacy, measuring participant's confidence to communicate with healthcare providers, navigate the health system and take an active stance in relation to their health. Findings showed that financial insecurity was associated with lower health literacy and poorer self-reported physical and mental health. Health literacy mediated 16.2% of the effect of financial insecurity on physical health scores and 16.6% of the effect of financial insecurity on mental health scores. This suggests that programmes which seek to build health literacy among PLHIV may improve health outcomes among PLHIV who are struggling financially. Health literacy programmes are likely to be effective if they build confidence and resourcefulness among people to engage with health information, decision-making and care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although there is some research on women's choice of birthplace, most of this research has been conducted overseas. This study explored factors influencing the decision to use public or private maternity services within regional Australia. Methods: This cross-sectional study consisted of a community-based, anonymous, online questionnaire focused on factors influencing a woman's choice of birth location and included adult females who had given birth in the past 2 years within two regional areas. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse demographic characteristics and factors influencing decisions regarding birthplace. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used to compare public and private births for multiple variables. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the odds ratio for each potential factor based on whether participants with private health insurance (PHI) elected to birth in the public or private regional hospitals. Open coding was used to group responses to open ended questions into themes. Results: Data from 510 questionnaires were analysed. The three most frequently reported factors influencing a woman's decision about birthplace were financial reasons, the ability to choose their doctor and not having PHI. Women with PHI who opted for birth in the public system were almost four-fold more likely to select access to intensive care services and 2.6-fold more likely to select a preference for a low-intervention birth as one of their top five most influential factors. The results highlight that women want access to midwifery continuity of care. Conclusion: This study provides insights into the factors influencing a woman's complex decision about where and with whom to birth and how health insurance affects that decision, an area where there is a paucity of peer-reviewed literature. This research highlights the importance of being able to choose one's doctor and the desire for access to midwife-led models of care, and provides evidence to advocate for improved access to additional models of care in the private sector. What is already known?: The viability of regional private maternity hospitals is in question because, once the birth rate goes below a certain threshold, providing private obstetric service becomes unviable. Closure of regional private hospitals means less choice in regional areas. Minimal information is available about the factors influencing a woman with PHI to give birth in the public system, and much of the evidence is anecdotal. What does this paper add?: This study provides insight into how PHI status and other factors influence a woman's decision to birth in the public versus private sector, an area where there is a paucity of peer-reviewed literature. It also highlights a desire from women for access to midwifery continuity of care in the private system. What are the implications for practitioners?: This research provides evidence to advocate for improved access to additional models of care, especially for midwifery-led care in the private sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]