Abstract

IntroductionAustralians in rural and remote areas experience poorer health status compared with many metropolitan residents, due partly to inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) services. Building on recent research that identified PHC services which all Australians should be able to access regardless of where they live, this paper aims to define the population thresholds governing which PHC services would be best provided by a resident health worker, and to outline attendant implementation issues.MethodsA Delphi method comprising panellists with expertise in rural, remote and/or Indigenous PHC was used. Five population thresholds reflecting Australia’s diverse rural and remote geography were devised. Panellists participated in two electronic surveys. Using a Likert scale, they were asked at what population threshold each PHC service should be provided by a resident health worker. A follow-up focus group identified important underlying principles which guided the consensus process.ResultsResponse rates were high. The population thresholds for core PHC services provided by a resident worker were less in remote communities compared with rural communities. For example, the population threshold for ‘care of the sick and injured,’ was ≤100 for remote compared with 101–500 for rural communities. For ‘mental health’, ‘maternal/child health’, ‘sexual health’ and ‘public health’ services in remote communities the population threshold was 101–500, compared to 501–1000 for rural communities. Principles underpinning implementation included the fundamental importance of equity; consideration of social determinants of health; flexibility, effective expenditure of resources, tailoring services to ensure consumer acceptability, prioritising services according to need, and providing services as close to home as possible.ConclusionThis research can assist policy makers and service planners to determine the population thresholds at which PHC services should be delivered by a resident health worker, to allocate resources and provide services more equitably, and inform consumers about PHC services they can reasonably expect to access in their community.This framework assists in developing a systematic approach to strategies seeking to address existing rural–urban health workforce maldistribution, including the training of generalists as opposed to specialists, and providing necessary infrastructure in communities most in need.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0228-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • Australians in rural and remote areas experience poorer health status compared with many metropolitan residents, due partly to inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) services

  • Many services included under ‘allied health’, ‘oral/dental health’ and ‘rehabilitation’ required larger populations. These results accord with current health priorities in Australia associated with an ageing population, improving support for people living with disabilities, improving mental health services, addressing high rates of sexually transmissible infections in remote communities and the importance of preventive health strategies across communities

  • Residents of rural and remote communities continue to experience poorer but avoidable health outcomes compared to many city residents

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Australians in rural and remote areas experience poorer health status compared with many metropolitan residents, due partly to inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) services. Rates of potentially preventable diseases and avoidable hospitalisations increase significantly with geographical remoteness Mortality rates for both males and females, possibly the best indicator of the health of the population, are significantly higher in very remote areas compared with major cities [2]. These outcomes reflect both the high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged and Indigenous residents with high disease burdens, and the inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) services for those living in rural and remote communities [1, 3]. Both Canada and the United States, with their vast landscapes and scattered rural and remote communities, experiences similar health disparities that are linked to social determinants and poor access to PHC [4, 5]

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call