Inequity in Australian health care: how do we progress from here?

Mooney, Gavin

doi:10.1111/j.1467-842x.2003.tb00392.x

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most glaring example in recent times lies in the government's schemes to promote private health insurance. The cost of increasing spending on primary healthcare for Aboriginal people to a level which would take into account such considerations as greater health problems, cultural‐access barriers and equity (ie, increasing it to five times the per‐capita level for non‐Aboriginal people 17 ) might be measured by the benefit forgone if the government were to halve the rebate (from 30% to 15%) for private health insurance 18…”

Section: Clash Of Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional racism in Australian healthcare: a plea for decency

Henry¹,

Houston²,

Mooney³

2004

Medical Journal of Australia

148

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Clash Of Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional racism in Australian healthcare: a plea for decency

Henry¹,

Houston²,

Mooney³

2004

Medical Journal of Australia

148

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Risk factors are also increasingly more prevalent in areas of low socioeconomic status and in communities characterised by low levels of educational attainment; high levels of unemployment; substantial levels of discrimination, interpersonal violence and exclusion; and poverty. There is a higher prevalence of such factors among Indigenous communities, and other socioeconomically disadvantaged Australians [5,6]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The socioeconomic gradient and chronic illness and associated risk factors in Australia

Glover

Hetzel

Tennant

2004

Aust N Z Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine the prevalence of major chronic diseases and their risk factors in different socioeconomic groups in the Australian population, in order to highlight the need for public policy initiatives to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in health.Methods: Data were provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) from the 2001 National Health Survey (NHS) for selected chronic diseases and associated risk factors. Conditions selected were those, which form the National Health Priority Area (NHPA) conditions (other than injury, which has not been included in this paper, with its focus on chronic disease); plus other 'serious' chronic conditions, in line with the classification developed by Mathers; and for which sufficient cases were available for analysis by socioeconomic status. Indirectly age-standardised prevalence rates were calculated by broad age group for Australia and for five groups of socioeconomic status; rate ratios were calculated to show variations in prevalence between these groups.Results: Significant socioeconomic inequalities were evident for many of the major chronic diseases; the largest was for diabetes mellitus (at ages 25 to 64 years); and for many diseases, there was also a strong, continuous socioeconomic gradient in the rates.Circulatory system diseases (in particular, hypertensive disease) and digestive system diseases also exhibited a strong differential in the 25 to 64 year age group.In the 65 years and over age group, the strongest inequalities were evident for mental and behavioural problems, diabetes (with a continuous socioeconomic gradient in rates) and respiratory system diseases.A number of risk factors for chronic diseases, namely self-reported smoking, alcohol misuse, physical inactivity and excess weight showed a striking association with socioeconomic status, in particular for people who were smokers and those who did not exercise. Conclusion:This analysis shows that the prevalence of chronic disease varies across the socioeconomic gradient for a number of specific diseases, as well as for important disease risk factors. Therefore, any policy interventions to address the impact of chronic disease, at a population level, need to take into account these socioeconomic inequalities.

show abstract

“…The relative importance people place on particular healthcare services is a significant factor in meeting their healthcare needs and influencing their health behaviour 1 . To date, little systematic research has been conducted in Australia on rural consumer preferences for healthcare services, even though it has been acknowledged that rural and remote healthcare services need to reflect better the preferences of the communities they serve 2 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Still the doctor — by a country mile! Preferences for health services in two country towns in north‐west New South Wales

Smith

Humphreys

Lenard

et al. 2004

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate whether rural consumer preferences for health services have changed over time or vary across communities with different models of health service delivery. Design: Questionnaire survey replicating a 1989 study, with ranking of seven different healthcare services. Participants and setting: Adult occupants from a 20% sample of private residences, in towns and on farms, in the rural shires of Bogan and Warren in north‐west New South Wales. The survey was conducted in September 2002. Main outcome measures: Rank order of preferences for different healthcare services; preference structure intervals showing relative “distance” between preferences. Results: Response rates were 68% (Nyngan town), 78% (Nyngan farms) and 59% (Warren town). The doctor was the most valued health service in rural communities, followed by the hospital. These preferences occurred regardless of age, sex or place of residence, persisted over time, and were similar for residents of towns with different models of healthcare service provision. Conclusions: Rural people, both in towns and on farms, rate acute primary healthcare services provided by the doctor and hospital as the two most important services. These preferences have not changed substantially after a decade of restructuring rural health services and reorienting them towards a primary healthcare approach. The stability of rural consumer preferences may reflect a bias towards the status quo.

show abstract

Inequity in Australian health care: how do we progress from here?

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Institutional racism in Australian healthcare: a plea for decency

Institutional racism in Australian healthcare: a plea for decency

The socioeconomic gradient and chronic illness and associated risk factors in Australia

Still the doctor — by a country mile! Preferences for health services in two country towns in north‐west New South Wales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About