IntroductionRefugees have many complex health care needs which should be addressed by the primary health care services, both on their arrival in resettlement countries and in their transition to long-term care. The aim of this narrative synthesis is to identify the components of primary health care service delivery models for such populations which have been effective in improving access, quality and coordination of care.MethodsA systematic review of the literature, including published systematic reviews, was undertaken. Studies between 1990 and 2011 were identified by searching Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Australian Public Affairs Information Service – Health, Health and Society Database, Multicultural Australian and Immigration Studies and Google Scholar. A limited snowballing search of the reference lists of all included studies was also undertaken. A stakeholder advisory committee and international advisers provided papers from grey literature. Only English language studies of evaluated primary health care models of care for refugees in developed countries of resettlement were included.ResultsTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review of which 15 were Australian and 10 overseas models. These could be categorised into six themes: service context, clinical model, workforce capacity, cost to clients, health and non-health services. Access was improved by multidisciplinary staff, use of interpreters and bilingual staff, no-cost or low-cost services, outreach services, free transport to and from appointments, longer clinic opening hours, patient advocacy, and use of gender-concordant providers. These services were affordable, appropriate and acceptable to the target groups. Coordination between the different health care services and services responding to the social needs of clients was improved through case management by specialist workers. Quality of care was improved by training in cultural sensitivity and appropriate use of interpreters.ConclusionThe elements of models most frequently associated with improved access, coordination and quality of care were case management, use of specialist refugee health workers, interpreters and bilingual staff. These findings have implications for workforce planning and training.
Many Australian adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not follow recommended self-management behaviours that could prevent or delay complications. This exploratory study aimed to investigate the factors influencing self-management of T2DM in general practice. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with T2DM (n = 10) and their GPs (n = 4) and practice nurses (n = 3) in a low socioeconomic area of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The interviews were analysed thematically using the socio-ecological model as a framework for coding. Additional themes were derived inductively based on the explicitly stated meaning of the text. Factors influencing self-management occurred on four levels of the socio-ecological model: individual (e-health literacy, motivation, time constraints); interpersonal (family and friends, T2DM education, patient-provider relationship); organisational (affordability, multidisciplinary care); and community levels (culture, self-management resources). Multi-level strategies are needed to address this wide range of factors that are beyond the scope of single services or organisations. These could include tailoring health education and resources to e-health literacy and culture; attention to social networks and the patient–provider relationship; and facilitating access to affordable on-site allied health services.
Objective: This study examined advance care planning as delivered by general practice registrars and recently fellowed GPs in New South Wales rural settings. The facilitators and barriers to advance care planning uptake in these areas were investigated, as well as the state of general practice training on advance care planning. Design: Qualitative descriptive methodology, involving semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews. Setting: Primary care. Participants: General practice registrars and recently fellowed GPs in New SouthWales rural settings. Definition of rural using the Australian Standard Geographical Classification -Remoteness Area. Thirteen participants were included in the study. Main outcome measures: Thematic analysis of interview transcripts elucidated key issues emerging from participants' accounts. Results: Key barriers included doctor-dependent uptake, demands on doctor's time and the limited relevant resources available. Facilitators recognised were patient control in end-of-life care and long-standing relationships between GPs and their patients. Uptake among patients was low, and minimal training on advance care planning reported. Conclusion: The lack of training opportunities in advance care planning during vocational training, especially when combined with the essential role played by rural GPs in initiating advance care planning and providing end-of-life care, appears to be a major problem that might contribute to poor uptake among patients in rural areas. This study demonstrated, however, the significant benefits that advance care planning could bring in patients living in rural communities if delivered effectively. Given that rural GPs face a number of barriers to providing routine health care, these results highlight an important need to provide GPs and rural communities with support, education, incentive, better administrative tools, options and greater awareness of advance care planning. K E Y W O R D Sadvance care planning, education, end-of-life care, medical treatment decisions, primary care, rural health services
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.