6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Emerging evidence of the value of health assessments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the primary healthcare setting

      , , , ,
      Australian Journal of Primary Health
      CSIRO Publishing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          The launch of the third edition of the National guide to preventive health assessment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in March 2018 heralds a renewed commitment to improving the delivery of preventive care, and should reinvigorate discussions on the effectiveness of Indigenous-specific health assessments and how best to implement them. A substantial body of evidence on adherence to guideline-recommended care has been generated through a research-based continuous quality improvement (CQI) initiative conducted between 2010 and 2014. The research, which involved clinical audits of more than 17000 client records and 119 systems assessments relating to preventive care in 137 Indigenous primary healthcare centres across Australia, shows that a structured CQI program can improve the delivery of preventive health assessments and use of evidence-based guidelines. However, program implementation has also seen the emergence of new challenges. This paper reflects on four major lessons from this collaborative program of applied research that will lead to more effective delivery of preventive care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Burden of disease and injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: the Indigenous health gap.

          Disparities in health status between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the total Australian population have been documented in a fragmentary manner using disparate health outcome measures. We applied the burden of disease approach to national population health datasets and Indigenous-specific epidemiological studies. The main outcome measure is the Indigenous health gap, i.e. the difference between current rates of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) by age, sex and cause for Indigenous Australians and DALY rates if the same level of mortality and disability as in the total Australian population had applied. The Indigenous health gap accounted for 59% of the total burden of disease for Indigenous Australians in 2003 indicating a very large potential for health gain. Non-communicable diseases explained 70% of the health gap. Tobacco (17%), high body mass (16%), physical inactivity (12%), high blood cholesterol (7%) and alcohol (4%) were the main risk factors contributing to the health gap. While the 26% of Indigenous Australians residing in remote areas experienced a disproportionate amount of the health gap (40%) compared with non-remote areas, the majority of the health gap affects residents of non-remote areas. Comprehensive information on the burden of disease for Indigenous Australians is essential for informed health priority setting. This assessment has identified large health gaps which translate into opportunities for large health gains. It provides the empirical base to determine a more equitable and efficient funding of Indigenous health in Australia. The methods are replicable and would benefit priority setting in other countries with great disparities in health experienced by Indigenous peoples or other disadvantaged population groups.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

            Objectives To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks in adults with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes. Design Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. For mortality, we analysed the results with random effects meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, Healthstar, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EPOC register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included studies, citation tracking (Web of Knowledge), and contacts with trialists. Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adult populations unselected for disease or risk factors. Health checks defined as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. We did not include geriatric trials. Data extraction Two observers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. Results We identified 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182 880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (11 940 deaths), and they gave a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (0.91 to 1.17), and eight on cancer mortality (3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings. We did not find beneficial effects of general health checks on morbidity, hospitalisation, disability, worry, additional physician visits, or absence from work, but not all trials reported on these outcomes. One trial found that health checks led to a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared with the control group and an increased number of people with self reported chronic conditions, and one trial found an increased prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. Two out of four trials found an increased use of antihypertensives. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self reported health, which could be due to bias. Conclusions General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses. Important harmful outcomes were often not studied or reported. Systematic review registration Cochrane Library, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Study protocol: national research partnership to improve primary health care performance and outcomes for Indigenous peoples

              Background Strengthening primary health care is critical to reducing health inequity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Audit and Best practice for Chronic Disease Extension (ABCDE) project has facilitated the implementation of modern Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) approaches in Indigenous community health care centres across Australia. The project demonstrated improvements in health centre systems, delivery of primary care services and in patient intermediate outcomes. It has also highlighted substantial variation in quality of care. Through a partnership between academic researchers, service providers and policy makers, we are now implementing a study which aims to 1) explore the factors associated with variation in clinical performance; 2) examine specific strategies that have been effective in improving primary care clinical performance; and 3) work with health service staff, management and policy makers to enhance the effective implementation of successful strategies. Methods/Design The study will be conducted in Indigenous community health centres from at least six States/Territories (Northern Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Victoria) over a five year period. A research hub will be established in each region to support collection and reporting of quantitative and qualitative clinical and health centre system performance data, to investigate factors affecting variation in quality of care and to facilitate effective translation of research evidence into policy and practice. The project is supported by a web-based information system, providing automated analysis and reporting of clinical care performance to health centre staff and management. Discussion By linking researchers directly to users of research (service providers, managers and policy makers), the partnership is well placed to generate new knowledge on effective strategies for improving the quality of primary health care and fostering effective and efficient exchange and use of data and information among service providers and policy makers to achieve evidence-based resource allocation, service planning, system development, and improvements of service delivery and Indigenous health outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Australian Journal of Primary Health
                Aust. J. Prim. Health
                CSIRO Publishing
                1448-7527
                2019
                2019
                : 25
                : 1
                : 1
                Article
                10.1071/PY18088
                2785dfac-0804-4768-a3b0-ff308f21037f
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article