Search

Background: People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included.Methods: An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.Results: Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations.Conclusions: This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. The 2001 Primary Health Care Strategy provided significant new government funding for primary care (general practice and related services) via capitation funding formulas. However, there remain important unanswered questions about how capitation funding formulas should be redesigned to ensure equitable and sustainable service provision to all population groups. Aim. To compare levels of chronic illness, utilisation, and unmet need in patients categorised as ‘high-need’ with those categorised as non-‘high-need’ using the definitions that are used in the current funding context, in order to inform primary care funding formula design. Methods. Respondents of the New Zealand Health Survey (2018–19) were categorised into ‘high-need’ and non-‘high-need’, as defined in current funding formulas. We analysed: (i) presence, and number, of chronic diseases; (ii) self-reported primary care utilisation (previous 12 months); and (iii) self-reported unmet need for primary care (previous 12 months). Analyses used integrated survey weights to account for survey design. Results. In total, 29% of respondents were ‘high-need’, of whom 50.2% reported one or more chronic conditions (vs 47.8% of non-‘highneed’ respondents). ‘High-need’ respondents were more likely than non-‘high-need’ respondents to: report three or more chronic conditions (14.4% vs 13.7%); visit a general practitioner more often (seven or more visits per year: 9.9% vs 6.6%); and report barriers to care. Discussion. There is an urgent need for further quantification of the funding requirements of general practices serving high proportions of ‘high-need’ patients in order to ensure their viability, sustainability and the provision of quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Primary health care does not adequately respond to populations known to have high needs such as those with compounding jeopardy from chronic conditions, poverty, minority status and age; as such populations report powerlessness. Objective To explore what poor older adults with chronic conditions who mostly belong to ethnic minority groups say they want from clinicians. Setting and Participants Participants were older adults whose chronic conditions were severe enough to require hospital admission more than twice in the previous 12 months. All participants lived in poor localities in Auckland, New Zealand's largest city. Methods Forty-two in-depth interviews were conducted and analysed using qualitative description. Results An outward acceptance of health care belied an underlying dissatisfaction with low engagement. Participants did not feel heard and wanted information conveyed in a way that indicated clinicians understood them in the context of their lives. Powerlessness, anger, frustration and non-concordance were frequent responses. Discussion and Conclusions Despite socio-cultural and disease-related complexity, patients pursue the (unrealised) ideal of an engaged therapeutic relationship with an understanding clinician. Powerlessness means that the onus is upon the health system and the clinician to engage. Engagement means building a relationship on the basis of social, cultural and clinical knowledge and demonstrating a shift in the way clinicians choose to think and interact in patient care. Respectful listening and questioning can deepen clinicians' awareness of patients' most important concerns. Enabling patients to direct the consultation is a way to integrate clinician expertise with what patients need and value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]