Search

Abstract Background This study aims to evaluate healthcare systems and pandemic responses in relation to marginalized and vulnerable groups, identify populations requiring urgent care, and assess the differential impacts on their health during the pandemic. Methods Data were collected by the Asia-Pacific Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (APO)–National University of Singapore and APO–International Health Policy Program consortium members: Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. Data were collected through a combination of semi-structured interviews, policy document reviews, and analysis of secondary data. Results Our findings reveal that the pandemic exacerbated existing health disparities, particularly affecting older adults, women, and children. Additionally, the study identified LGBTI individuals, healthcare workers, slum dwellers, and migrant workers as groups that faced particularly severe challenges during the pandemic. LGBTI individuals encountered heightened discrimination and limited access to health services tailored to their needs. Healthcare workers suffered from immense stress and risk due to prolonged exposure to the virus and critical working conditions. Slum dwellers struggled with healthcare access and social distancing due to high population density and inadequate sanitation. Migrant workers were particularly hard hit by high risks of virus transmission and stringent, often discriminatory, isolation measures that compounded their vulnerability. The study highlights the variation in the extent and nature of vulnerabilities, which were influenced by each country’s specific social environment and healthcare infrastructure. It was observed that public health interventions often lacked the specificity required to effectively address the needs of all vulnerable groups, suggesting a gap in policy and implementation. Conclusions The study underscores that vulnerabilities vary greatly depending on the social environment and context of each country, affecting the degree and types of vulnerable groups. It is critical that measures to ensure universal health coverage and equal accessibility to healthcare are specifically designed to address the needs of the most vulnerable. Despite commonalities among groups across different societies, these interventions must be adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of each group within their specific social contexts to effectively mitigate the impact of health disparities.

Abstract Background Choosing the appropriate definition of rural area is critical to ensuring health resources are carefully targeted to support the communities needing them most. This study aimed at reviewing various definitions and demonstrating how the application of different rural area definitions implies geographic doctor distribution to inform the development of a more fit-for-purpose rural area definition for health workforce research and policies. Methods We reviewed policy documents and literature to identify the rural area definitions in Indonesian health research and policies. First, we used the health policy triangle to critically summarize the contexts, contents, actors and process of developing the rural area definitions. Then, we compared each definition’s strengths and weaknesses according to the norms of appropriate rural area definitions (i.e. explicit, meaningful, replicable, quantifiable and objective, derived from high-quality data and not frequently changed; had on-the-ground validity and clear boundaries). Finally, we validated the application of each definition to describe geographic distribution of doctors by estimating doctor-to-population ratios and the Theil-L decomposition indices using each definition as the unit of analysis. Results Three definitions were identified, all applied at different levels of geographic areas: “urban/rural” villages (Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS] definition), “remote/non-remote” health facilities (Ministry of Health [MoH] definition) and “less/more developed” districts (presidential/regulated definition). The CBS and presidential definitions are objective and derived from nationwide standardized calculations on high-quality data, whereas the MoH definition is more subjective, as it allows local government to self-nominate the facilities to be classified as remote. The CBS and presidential definition criteria considered key population determinants for doctor availability, such as population density and economic capacity, as well as geographic accessibility. Analysis of national doctor data showed that remote, less developed and rural areas (according to the respective definitions) had lower doctor-to-population ratios than their counterparts. In all definitions, the Theil-L-within ranged from 76 to 98%, indicating that inequality of doctor density between these districts was attributed mainly to within-group rather than between-group differences. Between 2011 and 2018, Theil-L-within decreased when calculated using the MoH and presidential definitions, but increased when the CBS definition was used. Conclusion Comparing the content of off-the-shelf rural area definitions critically and how the distribution of health resource differs when analysed using different definitions is invaluable to inform the development of fit-for-purpose rural area definitions for future health policy.

Background Evidence suggests that women gave birth in diverse types of health facilities and were assisted by various types of health providers. This study examines how these choices are influenced by the Indonesia national health insurance programme (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN)), which aimed to provide equitable access to health services, including maternal health.Methods Using multinomial logit regression models, we examined patterns and determinants of women’s choice for childbirth, focusing on health insurance coverage, geographical location and socioeconomic disparities. We used the 2018 nationally representative household survey dataset consisting of 41 460 women (15–49 years) with a recent live birth.Results JKN coverage was associated with increased use of higher-level health providers and facilities and reduced the likelihood of deliveries at primary health facilities and attendance by midwives/nurses. Women with JKN coverage were 13.1% and 17.0% (p

Abstract Background More than 60% of the world’s rural population live in the Asia-Pacific region. Of these, more than 90% reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Asia-Pacific LMICs rural populations are more impoverished and have poorer access to medical care, placing them at greater risk of poor health outcomes. Understanding factors associated with doctors working in rural areas is imperative in identifying effective strategies to improve rural medical workforce supply in Asia-Pacific LMICs. Method We performed a scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature from Asia-Pacific LMICs (1999 to 2019), searching major online databases and web-based resources. The literature was synthesized based on the World Health Organization Global Policy Recommendation categories for increasing access to rural health workers. Result Seventy-one articles from 12 LMICs were included. Most were about educational factors (82%), followed by personal and professional support (57%), financial incentives (45%), regulatory (20%), and health systems (13%). Rural background showed strong association with both rural preference and actual work in most studies. There was a paucity in literature on the effect of rural pathway in medical education such as rural-oriented curricula, rural clerkships and internship; however, when combined with other educational and regulatory interventions, they were effective. An additional area, atop of the WHO categories was identified, relating to health system factors, such as governance, health service organization and financing. Studies generally were of low quality—frequently overlooking potential confounding variables, such as respondents’ demographic characteristics and career stage—and 39% did not clearly define ‘rural’. Conclusion This review is consistent with, and extends, most of the existing evidence on effective strategies to recruit and retain rural doctors while specifically informing the range of evidence within the Asia-Pacific LMIC context. Evidence, though confined to 12 countries, is drawn from 20 years’ research about a wide range of factors that can be targeted to strengthen strategies to increase rural medical workforce supply in Asia-Pacific LMICs. Multi-faceted approaches were evident, including selecting more students into medical school with a rural background, increasing public-funded universities, in combination with rural-focused education and rural scholarships, workplace and rural living support and ensuring an appropriately financed rural health system. The review identifies the need for more studies in a broader range of Asia-Pacific countries, which expand on all strategy areas, define rural clearly, use multivariate analyses, and test how various strategies relate to doctor’s career stages.

Background: Doctor shortages in remote areas of Indonesia are amongst challenges to provide equitable healthcare access. Understanding factors associated with doctors' work location is essential to overcome geographic maldistribution. Focused analyses of doctors' early-career years can provide evidence to strengthen home-grown remote workforce development.Method: This is a cross-sectional study of early-career (post-internship years 1–5) Indonesian doctors, involving an online self-administered survey on demographic characteristics, and; locations of upbringing, medical clerkship (placement during medical school), internship, and current work. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test factors associated with current work in remote districts.Results: Of 3,176 doctors actively working as clinicians, 8.9% were practicing in remote districts. Compared with their non-remote counterparts, doctors working in remote districts were more likely to be male (OR 1.5,CI 1.1–2.1) or unmarried (OR 1.9,CI 1.3–3.0), have spent more than half of their childhood in a remote district (OR 19.9,CI 12.3–32.3), have completed a remote clerkship (OR 2.2,CI 1.1–4.4) or internship (OR 2.0,CI 1.3–3.0), currently participate in rural incentive programs (OR 18.6,CI 12.8–26.8) or have previously participated in these (OR 2.0,CI 1.3–3.0), be a government employee (OR 3.2,CI 2.1–4.9), or have worked rurally or remotely post-internship but prior to current position (OR 1.9,CI 1.2–3.0).Conclusion: Our results indicate that building the Indonesian medical workforce in remote regions could be facilitated by investing in strategies to select medical students with a remote background, delivering more remote clerkships during the medical course, deploying more doctors in remote internships and providing financial incentives. Additional considerations include expanding government employment opportunities in rural areas to achieve a more equitable geographic distribution of doctors in Indonesia.

Objectives: The study aims to understand the acceptability of Prolanis, a program that shifts the diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) patient management from secondary to primary care, among Indonesian primary health care providers. Method: We completed face-to-face semistructured interviews with 14 health professionals from 3 urban and 4 rural government-owned primary health care clinics ( Puskesmas ) in 4 districts. We performed content analysis using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) to understand which factors could facilitate or reduce acceptability. Results: Our study identifies that lack of health care providers’ acceptability to Prolanis was attributable to the negative affective attitude, low perceived effectiveness, poor self-efficacy, and work burden. The use of Prolanis output as one of the pay-for-performance indicators was deemed unsuitable because it could demotivate health providers to capture more undetected T2DM cases. This, compounded by lacking perceived benefit for the health care providers, leading to negative attitudes. Participants believed that the program improved patients’ adherence to visiting clinics routinely; however, the absence of a formal evaluation of reductions of key T2DM indicators—blood glucose level and HbA1c—causing the health providers to doubt the program effectiveness. Availability of or access to adequate blood glucose testing equipment is also of paramount importance to improve acceptability. Although the significant increase in patient load only occurred to Puskesmas with lacking doctors, an increased workload burden due to clerical works was experienced by the nonmedical workforce. The program appears to be more acceptable for health care providers in urban Puskesmas compared with their rural counterparts, attributable to better geographical accessibility and care-seeking behavior among people living in urban locations. Conclusions: This study highlights critical issues that should be addressed to improve the acceptability of Prolanis among health care professionals. Government or stakeholders play a critical role in improving program acceptability. More study is needed to capture wider variety of health care facilities’ characteristics.