Is a global rural and remote health research agenda desirable or is context supreme?

Abstract

This paper proposes that there is value in international comparison of rural and remote health-care service delivery models because of practical reasons - to find ideas, models and lessons to address 'local' delivery challenges; and for theoretical reasons - to derive a conceptual framework for international comparison. Literature review and commentary. There are significant challenges to international comparative research that have been highlighted generically; for example, equivalence of terminology, datasets and indicators. Context supremacy has been raised as a reason why models and research findings might not be transferable. This paper proposes that there is insufficient knowledge about how rural contexts in relation to health service delivery are similar or different internationally. Investigating contexts in different countries and identifying the dimensions on which service delivery might differ is an important stimulus for study. The paper suggests, for discussion, dimensions on which rural service delivery might differ between countries and regions, including physical geographical factors, social interaction with rurality, policies of service provision and the politics and operation of health care. The paper asks whether, given the need to develop models suitable for rural areas and for theory on rural health to extend, international comparative research is an imperative or an indulgence.