Experiences of primary healthcare professionals and patients from an area of urban disadvantage: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The health disadvantage in socioeconomically marginalised urban settings can be challenging for health professionals, but strong primary health care improves health equity and outcomes. AIM: To understand challenges and identify needs in general practices in a socioeconomically marginalised Australian setting. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative methodology with general practices in a disadvantaged area of western Sydney. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals and their patients were transcribed and analysed thematically under the guidance of a reference group of stakeholder representatives. RESULTS: A total of 57 participants from 17 practices (comprising 16 GPs, five GP registrars [GPRs], 15 practice staff, 10 patients, and 11 allied health professionals [AHPs]), provided a rich description of local communities and patients, and highlighted areas of satisfaction and challenges of providing high quality health care in this setting. Interviewees identified issues with health systems impacting on patients and healthcare professionals, and recommended healthcare reform. Team-based, patient-centred models of primary health care with remuneration for quality of care rather than patient throughput were strongly advocated, along with strategies to improve patient access to specialist care. CONCLUSION: The needs of healthcare professionals and patients working and living in urban areas of disadvantage are not adequately addressed by the Australian health system. The authors recommend the implementation of local trials aimed at improving primary health care in areas of need, and wider health system reform in order to improve the health of those at socioeconomic and health disadvantage.

Beyond diagnosis and survivorship: findings from a mixed-methods study of a community-based cancer support service.

This consumer-led research investigated the client experiences and the individual and community benefits of a community-based cancer support service operating in a regional setting. The study included cross-sectional surveys, focus group discussions and key-informant interviews. In total, 114 clients, 28 carers and 20 therapists were surveyed; three client focus groups were conducted and five directors and staff were interviewed. For many clients and carers, the warm welcome experienced at first contact sets the tone for a long-term association with the organisation. The feeling of being cared for extends to the broader community and living with cancer becomes more than survivorship. Integral to the organisational model are opportunity (second-hand) shops that enable subsidised complementary therapies and other services, offer a way of giving back and assist disadvantaged community members. The organisational model has benefits, not only for people living with cancer and their families, but also for the wider community.

Realisation of a joint consumer engagement strategy in the Nepean Blue Mountains region.

Ensuring consumer engagement at different levels of the health system - direct care, organisational design and governance and policy - has become a strategic priority. This case study explored, through interviews with six purposively selected 'insiders' and document review, how one Medicare Local (now a Primary Health Network, PHN) and Local Health District worked together with consumers, to establish a common consumer engagement structure and mechanisms to support locally responsive, integrated and consumer-centred services. The two healthcare organisations worked as partners across the health system, sharing ownership and responsibility. Critical success factors included a consumer champion working with other highly motivated consumers concerned with improving the health system, a budget, and ongoing commitment from the Medicare Local or PHN and the Local Health District at executive and board level. Shared boundaries were an enormous advantage. Activities were jointly planned and executed, with consumer participation paramount. Training and mentoring enhanced consumer capacity and confidence. Bringing everyone on board and building on existing structures required time, effort and resources. The initiative produced immediate and lasting benefits, with consumer engagement now embedded in organisational governance and practice.

Effectiveness of Moving On: an Australian designed generic self-management program for people with a chronic illness.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the evaluation of "Moving On", a generic self-management program for people with a chronic illness developed by Arthritis NSW. The program aims to help participants identify their need for behaviour change and acquire the knowledge and skills to implement changes that promote their health and quality of life. METHOD: A prospective pragmatic randomised controlled trial involving two group programs in community settings: the intervention program (Moving On) and a control program (light physical activity). Participants were recruited by primary health care providers across the north-west region of metropolitan Sydney, Australia between June 2009 and October 2010. Patient outcomes were self-reported via pre- and post-program surveys completed at the time of enrolment and sixteen weeks after program commencement. Primary outcomes were change in self-efficacy (Self-efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale), self-management knowledge and behaviour and perceived health status (Self-Rated Health Scale and the Health Distress Scale). RESULTS: A total of 388 patient referrals were received, of whom 250 (64.4%) enrolled in the study. Three patients withdrew prior to allocation. 25 block randomisations were performed by a statistician external to the research team: 123 patients were allocated to the intervention program and 124 were allocated to the control program. 97 (78.9%) of the intervention participants commenced their program. The overall attrition rate of 40.5% included withdrawals from the study and both programs. 24.4% of participants withdrew from the intervention program but not the study and 22.6% withdrew from the control program but not the study. A total of 62 patients completed the intervention program and follow-up evaluation survey and 77 patients completed the control program and follow-up evaluation survey. At 16 weeks follow-up there was no significant difference between intervention and control groups in self-efficacy; however, there was an increase in self-efficacy from baseline to follow-up for the intervention participants (t=-1.948, p=0.028). There were no significant differences in self-rated health or health distress scores between groups at follow-up, with both groups reporting a significant decrease in health distress scores. There was no significant difference between or within groups in self-management knowledge and stage of change of behaviours at follow-up. Intervention group attenders had significantly higher physical activity (t=-4.053, p=0.000) and nutrition scores (t=2.315, p= 0.01) at follow-up; however, these did not remain significant after adjustment for covariates. At follow-up, significantly more participants in the control group (20.8%) indicated that they did not have a self-management plan compared to those in the intervention group (8.8%) (X²=4.671, p=0.031). There were no significant changes in other self-management knowledge areas and behaviours after adjusting for covariates at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study produced mixed findings. Differences between groups as allocated were diluted by the high proportion of patients not completing the program. Further monitoring and evaluation are needed of the impact and cost effectiveness of the program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12609000298213.