Search

Background: Given the persistence of Indigenous health inequities across national contexts, many countries have adopted strategies to improve the health of Indigenous peoples. Governmental recognition of the unique health needs of Indigenous populations is necessary for the development of targeted programs and policies to achieve universal health coverage. At the same time, the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and program and policy design helps to ensure that barriers to health services are appropriately addressed and promotes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Due to similar patterns of Indigenous health and health determinants across borders, there have been calls for greater global collaboration in this field. However, most international studies on Indigenous health policy link Anglo-settler democracies (Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States), despite these countries representing a small fraction of the world's Indigenous people. Aim: This paper examines national-level policy in Australia, Brazil, Chile and New Zealand in relation to governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs and engagement with Indigenous peoples in health. The paper aims to examine how Indigenous health needs and engagement are addressed in national policy frameworks within each of the countries in order to contribute to the understanding of how to develop pro-equity policies within national health care systems. Methods: For each country, a review was undertaken of national policies and legislation to support engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous peoples in the identification of their health needs, development of programs and policies to address these needs and which demonstrate governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs. Government websites were searched as well as the following databases: Google, OpenGrey, CAB Direct, PubMed, Web of Science and WorldCat. Findings: Each of the four countries have adopted international agreements regarding the engagement of Indigenous peoples in health. However, there is significant variation in the extent to which the principles laid out in these agreements are reflected in national policy, legislation and practice. Brazil and New Zealand both have established national policies to facilitate engagement. In contrast, national policy to enable engagement is relatively lacking in Australia and Chile. Australia, Brazil and New Zealand each have significant initiatives and policy structures in place to address Indigenous health. However, in Brazil this is not necessarily reflected in practice and although New Zealand has national policies these have been recently reported as insufficient and, in fact, may be contributing to health inequity for Māori. In comparison to the other three countries, Chile has relatively few national initiatives or policies in place to support Indigenous engagement or recognise the distinct health needs of Indigenous communities. Conclusions: The adoption of international policy frameworks forms an important step in ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in the formation and implementation of health policy and programs. However, without the relevant principles being reflected in national legislature, international agreements hold little weight. At the same time, while a national legislative framework facilitates the engagement of Indigenous peoples, such policy may not necessarily translate into practice. Developing multi-level approaches that improve cohesion between international policy, national policy and practice in Indigenous engagement in health is therefore vital. Given that each of the four countries demonstrate strengths and weaknesses across this causal chain, cross-country policy examination provides guidance on strengthening these links. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Discussions of integrated care have ranged in focus from large-scale health system transformations, to discrete interventions intended to enhance local continuity of care. Beyond these variations in scale and focus, literature on integrated care has used a variety of conceptual frameworks to explain various activities and elements necessary to achieve integrated care. Existing frameworks have helped to advance research and practice; yet the complexity of changing practice required to achieve integrated care across the policy, organizational, and clinical levels complicates efforts to represent or implement these innovations in straightforward ways. Aims Objectives Theory or Methods: In this paper, we present a novel strategy for conceptualizing integrated care as developing through a series of milestones observable at the organizational level. Based on analysis of four integrated care organizational case studies in Canada and New Zealand, we outline how this approach to conceptualizing integrated care both resolves the tension of crossing the macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis, and generates new practical insights to guide policy and practice. Methods consist of qualitative interviews, observation, and document analysis across cases, and qualitative data were analyzed temporally to identify milestones as indicated by participants over time. Highlights or Results or Key Findings: We define a milestone as the occurrence of a salient event that is perceived by respondents to facilitate or disrupt efforts towards the development of integrated care. We synthesize these events at the organizational level, suggesting that the organizational level of analysis is the most appropriate level to represent the significance of these milestones. Our analysis identified six categories of milestone: (1) Strategic relational milestones, referring to building relationships between stakeholders. (2) Strategic process change milestones, referring to efforts to improve quality in practice. (3) Structural (intra-organizational) milestones, referring to changes in organizational structure. (4) Structural (inter-organizational) milestones, referring to changes in the legal, operational, or leadership structures that facilitate relationships between organizations. (5) Environmental milestones, referring to changes in the social or natural environment. (6) Political milestones, referring to changes in the control and allocation of resources. Conclusions: Our results generate a new conceptual framework for understanding the achievement of integrated care as occurring through a series of milestones. This approach enhances the focus on achieving integrated care "in the wild", in the actual environments in which leaders, clinicians, policymakers, patients, and caregivers work to implement integrated care. Implications for applicability/transferability sustainability and limitations: Our model emphasizes two practical points. First, that there is no single series of sequential steps that must be taken to achieve integrated care. Second, that policy efforts to support integrated care ought to encourage organizations and their collaborators to work toward milestones that facilitate the development of integrated care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]