30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Access to primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: a realist review

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 1 , 1
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      PRIMARY CARE

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The aim of this review is to identify and understand the contexts that effect access to high-quality primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas.

          Design

          A realist review.

          Data sources

          MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases and grey literature (from inception to December 2014).

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Broad inclusion criteria were used to allow articles which were not specific, but might be relevant to the population of interest to be considered. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for rigour and relevance and coded for concepts relating to context, mechanism or outcome.

          Analysis

          An overarching patient pathway was generated and used as the basis to explore contexts, causal mechanisms and outcomes.

          Results

          162 articles were included. Most were from the USA or the UK, cross-sectional in design and presented subgroup data by age, rurality or deprivation. From these studies, a patient pathway was generated which included 7 steps (problem identified, decision to seek help, actively seek help, obtain appointment, get to appointment, primary care interaction and outcome). Important contexts were stoicism, education status, expectations of ageing, financial resources, understanding the healthcare system, access to suitable transport, capacity within practice, the booking system and experience of healthcare. Prominent causal mechanisms were health literacy, perceived convenience, patient empowerment and responsiveness of the practice.

          Conclusions

          Socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas face personal, community and healthcare barriers that limit their access to primary care. Initiatives should be targeted at local contextual factors to help individuals recognise problems, feel welcome, navigate the healthcare system, book appointments easily, access appropriate transport and have sufficient time with professional staff to improve their experience of healthcare; all of which will require dedicated primary care resources.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

          Background Meta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews. Methods We (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards. Results We identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%. Conclusion This project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. To encourage dissemination of the RAMESES publication standards, this article is co-published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing and is freely accessible on Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jan). Please see related articles http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/21 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/22
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Primary health care delivery models in rural and remote Australia – a systematic review

            Background One third of all Australians live outside of its major cities. Access to health services and health outcomes are generally poorer in rural and remote areas relative to metropolitan areas. In order to improve access to services, many new programs and models of service delivery have been trialled since the first National Rural Health Strategy in 1994. Inadequate evaluation of these initiatives has resulted in failure to garner knowledge, which would facilitate the establishment of evidence-based service models, sustain and systematise them over time and facilitate transfer of successful programs. This is the first study to systematically review the available published literature describing innovative models of comprehensive primary health care (PHC) in rural and remote Australia since the development of the first National Rural Health Strategy (1993–2006). The study aimed to describe what health service models were reported to work, where they worked and why. Methods A reference group of experts in rural health assisted in the development and implementation of the study. Peer-reviewed publications were identified from the relevant electronic databases. 'Grey' literature was identified pragmatically from works known to the researchers, reference lists and from relevant websites. Data were extracted and synthesised from papers meeting inclusion criteria. Results A total of 5391 abstracts were reviewed. Data were extracted finally from 76 'rural' and 17 'remote' papers. Synthesis of extracted data resulted in a typology of models with five broad groupings: discrete services, integrated services, comprehensive PHC, outreach models and virtual outreach models. Different model types assume prominence with increasing remoteness and decreasing population density. Whilst different models suit different locations, a number of 'environmental enablers' and 'essential service requirements' are common across all model types. Conclusion Synthesised data suggest that, moving away from Australian coastal population centres, sustainable models are able to address diseconomies of scale which result from large distances and small dispersed populations. Based on the service requirements and enablers derived from analysis of reported successful PHC service models, we have developed a conceptual framework that is particularly useful in underpinning the development of sustainable PHC models in rural and remote communities.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              National study of barriers to timely primary care and emergency department utilization among Medicaid beneficiaries.

              We compare the association between barriers to timely primary care and emergency department (ED) utilization among adults with Medicaid versus private insurance. We analyzed 230,258 adult participants of the 1999 to 2009 National Health Interview Survey. We evaluated the association between 5 specific barriers to timely primary care (unable to get through on telephone, unable to obtain appointment soon enough, long wait in the physician's office, limited clinic hours, lack of transportation) and ED utilization (≥1 ED visit during the past year) for Medicaid and private insurance beneficiaries. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic status, health conditions, outpatient care utilization, and survey year. Overall, 16.3% of Medicaid and 8.9% of private insurance beneficiaries had greater than or equal to 1 barrier to timely primary care. Compared with individuals with private insurance, Medicaid beneficiaries had higher ED utilization overall (39.6% versus 17.7%), particularly among those with barriers (51.3% versus 24.6% for 1 barrier and 61.2% versus 28.9% for ≥2 barriers). After adjusting for covariates, Medicaid beneficiaries were more likely to have barriers (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 1.52) and higher ED utilization (adjusted OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.56). ED utilization was even higher among Medicaid beneficiaries with 1 barrier (adjusted OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.92) or greater than or equal to 2 barriers (adjusted OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.72 to 2.35) compared with that for individuals with private insurance and barriers. Compared with individuals with private insurance, Medicaid beneficiaries were affected by more barriers to timely primary care and had higher associated ED utilization. Expansion of Medicaid eligibility alone may not be sufficient to improve health care access. Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                17 May 2016
                : 6
                : 5
                : e010652
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of East Anglia , Norwich, UK
                [2 ]Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr John A Ford; john.ford@ 123456uea.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-010652
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010652
                4874140
                27188809
                1e37eaeb-1bf2-4fae-b404-41cd4a993464
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 26 November 2015
                : 30 March 2016
                : 22 April 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Research Trainees Coordinating Centre, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000659;
                Award ID: DRF-2014-07-083
                Categories
                General practice / Family practice
                Research
                1506
                1696
                1696
                1704
                1724

                Medicine
                primary care
                Medicine
                primary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article