Accessibility of Primary, Specialist, and Allied Health Services for Aboriginal People Living in Rural and Remote Communities: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Primary, specialist, and allied health services can assist in providing equitable access in rural and remote areas, where higher proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Aboriginal Australians) reside, to overcome the high rates of chronic diseases experienced by this population group. Little is currently known about the location and frequency of services and the extent to which providers believe delivery is occurring in a sustained and coordinated manner. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study will be to determine the availability, accessibility, and level of coordination of a range of community-based health care services to Aboriginal people and identify potential barriers in accessing health care services from the perspectives of the health service providers. METHODS: This mixed-methods study will take place in 3 deidentified communities in New South Wales selected for their high population of Aboriginal people and geographical representation of location type (coastal, rural, and border). The study is designed and will be conducted in collaboration with the communities, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs), and other local health services. Data collection will involve face-to-face and telephone interviews with participants who are health and community professionals and stakeholders. Participants will be recruited through snowball sampling and will answer structured, quantitative questions about the availability and accessibility of primary health care, specialist medical and allied health services and qualitative questions about accessing services. Quantitative data analysis will determine the frequency and accessibility of specific services across each community. Thematic and content analysis will identify issues relating to availability, accessibility, and coordination arising from the qualitative data. We will then combine the quantitative and qualitative data using a health ecosystems approach. RESULTS: We identified 28 stakeholder participants across the ACCHSs for recruitment through snowball sampling (coastal, n=4; rural, n=12; and border, n=12) for data collection. The project was funded in 2017, and enrolment was completed in 2017. Data analysis is currently under way, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The study will give an indication of the scope and level of coordination of primary, specialist, and allied health services in rural communities with high Aboriginal populations from the perspectives of service providers from those communities. Identification of factors affecting the availability, accessibility, and coordination of services can assist ways of developing and implementing culturally sensitive service delivery. These findings could inform recommendations for the provision of health services for Aboriginal people in rural and remote settings. The study will also contribute to the broader literature of rural and remote health service provision. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11471.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,101 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».