Dataset Information

The interface with naturopathy in rural primary health care: a survey of referral practices of general practitioners in rural and regional New South Wales, Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Naturopathy forms an increasingly significant part of the Australian healthcare setting, with high utilisation of naturopaths by the Australian public and a large therapeutic footprint in rural and regional Australia. However, despite these circumstances, there has been little exploration of the interface between naturopathy providers and conventional primary health care practitioners in rural and regional Australia. The study reported here examined the referral practices and factors that underlie referral to naturopaths amongst a sample of rural and regional Australian general practitioners (GPs).

Methods

A 27-item questionnaire was sent to all 1,486 GPs currently practising in rural and regional Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia.

Results

A total of 585 GPs responded to the questionnaire, with 49 questionnaires returned as "no longer at this address" (response rate: 40.7%). One-quarter of GPs (25.8%) referred to a naturopath at least a few times per year while nearly half (48.8%) stated that they would not refer to a naturopath under any circumstances. GPs were more likely to refer to a naturopath if the GP: was not initially from a rural area (OR=1.78; 95% CI: 0.95, 3.33); believes in the efficacy of naturopathy (OR=5.62; 95% CI: 2.42, 11.36); has seen positive results from naturopathy previously (OR=2.61; 95% CI: 1.35, 5.05); perceives a lack of other treatment options for their patient (OR=5.25; 95% CI: 2.42; 11.36); uses peer-reviewed literature as their major source of CAM information (OR=3.03; 95% CI: 1.65, 5.55); uses CAM practitioners as a major source of CAM information (OR=6.09; 95% CI: 2.91, 12.72); and does not have an existing relationship with any CAM provider (OR=3.03; 95% CI: 1.53, 6.25).

Conclusions

There is little interaction (both via referrals as well as the development of professional relationships) between the naturopathic and GP communities in rural and regional Australia, with significant levels of both support and opposition for naturopathic referral amongst GPs. The significant presence and high utilisation of naturopathy in rural primary health care, which appears to work in parallel to conventional medical care rather than in conjunction with it, should serve as an impetus for increased research into naturopathy practice, policy and regulation in rural and regional health.

SUBMITTER: Wardle JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4226969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Chiropractic and osteopathy form a significant part of the healthcare setting in rural and regional Australia, with national registration of practitioners, public subsidies for services and high utilisation by the Australian public. However, despite their significant role in rural and regional Australia, there has been little exploration of the interface between chiropractic and osteopathy and conventional primary health care practitioners in this area. The study aim was to examine the referral practices and factors that underlie referral to chiropractors and osteopaths by rural and regional Australian general practitioners (GPs), by drawing on a sample of GPs in rural and regional New South Wales.A 27-item questionnaire was sent to all 1486 GPs currently practising in rural and regional Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia.A total of 585 GPs responded to the questionnaire, with 49 questionnaires returned as "no longer at this address" (response rate: 40.7%). The majority of GPs (64.1%) referred to a chiropractor or osteopath at least a few times per year while 21.7% stated that they would not refer to a chiropractor or osteopath under any circumstances. Patients asking the GP about CAM (OR=3.59; CI: 1.12, 11.55), GP's use of CAM practitioners as a major source of information (OR=4.39; 95% CI: 2.04, 9.41), lack of other treatment options (OR=2.41; 95% CI: 1.18, 5.12), access to a wide variety of medical specialists (OR=12.5; 95% CI: 2.4, 50.0), GP's belief in the efficacy of chiropractic and osteopathy services (OR=3.39; 95% CI: 2.19, 5.25) and experiencing positive results from patients using these services previously (OR=1.67; CI: 1.02, 2.75) were all independently predictive of increased referral to chiropractic and osteopathy services amongst the rural GPs.There is a significant interface between chiropractic and osteopathy and Australian rural and regional general practice in New South Wales. Although there is generally high support for chiropractic and osteopathy among Australian GPs, this was not absolute and the heterogeneity of responses suggests that there remain tensions between the professions. The significant interface between chiropractic and osteopathy may be due in part to the inclusion of these professions in the publicly subsidised national healthcare delivery scheme. The significant impact of chiropractic and osteopathy and general practice in rural and regional Australian healthcare delivery should serve as an impetus for increased research into chiropractic and osteopathy practice, policy and regulation in these areas.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Regional variation in the use of health care services is widespread. Identifying and understanding the sources of variation and how much variation is unexplained can inform policy interventions to improve the efficiency and equity of health care delivery. METHODS:We examined the regional variation in the use of general practitioners (GPs) using data from the Social Health Atlas of Australia by Statistical Local Area (SLAs). 756 SLAs were included in the analysis. The outcome variable of GP visits per capita by SLAs was regressed on a series of demand-side factors measuring population health status and demographic characteristics and supply-side factors measuring access to physicians. Each group of variables was entered into the model sequentially to assess their explanatory share on regional differences in GP usage. RESULTS:Both demand-side and supply-side factors were found to influence the frequency of GP visits. Specifically, areas in urban regions, areas with a higher percentage of the population who are obese, who have profound or severe disability, and who hold concession cards, and areas with a smaller percentage of the population who reported difficulty in accessing services have higher GP usage. The availability of more GPs led to higher use of GP services while the supply of more specialists reduced use. 30.56% of the variation was explained by medical need. Together, both need-related and supply-side variables accounted for 32.24% of the regional differences as measured by the standard deviation of adjusted GP-consultation rate. CONCLUSIONS:There was substantial variation in GP use across Australian regions with only a small proportion of them being explained by population health needs, indicating a high level of unexplained clinical variation. Supply factors did not add a lot to the explanatory power. There was a lot of variation that was not attributable to the factors we could observe. This could be due to more subtle aspects of population need or preferences and therefore warranted. However, it could be due to practice patterns or other aspects of supply and be unexplained. Future work should try to explain the remaining unexplained variation.

Project description:Background: Outreach health practitioners play a key role in enhancing access to healthcare for remote, rural, regional, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia. Outreach health practitioners are those providing ongoing and integrated health services in communities that would otherwise have limited access. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand the job satisfaction of health workers as it correlates with long-term retention of the workforce, as well as effectiveness in the role and clinical outcomes for patients. Method: The study analysed data from 258 outreach health practitioners who responded to two cross-sectional surveys conducted by the NSW Rural Doctors Network during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/21 and 2021/22 in NSW and the ACT, Australia. Both bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to assess the associations between the outcome variable (outreach health practitioners' job satisfaction) and independent variables (sociodemographic factors, motivation, self-confidence, communication, capability). Results: Overall, the study showed that 92.2% of health practitioners were satisfied in their role providing outreach health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the multivariable model, factors significantly associated with higher satisfaction included good communication with other local health practitioners, using telehealth along with in-person care, and having high self-rated capability compared to those health practitioners who said they had lower job satisfaction. Conclusions: Outreach health practitioners' job satisfaction is important because poor satisfaction may lead to suboptimal healthcare delivery, poor clinical outcomes, and poor retention of staff in rural settings. These findings should be taken into consideration when developing future strategies to improve job satisfaction among rural outreach health practitioners and to enhance attraction, recruitment and retention and may be applicable to the broader health workforce.

Project description:BackgroundPolicy initiatives to improve retention of the rural health workforce have relied primarily on evidence for rural doctors, most of whom practice under a private business model. Much of the literature for rural allied health (AH) workforce focuses on the public sector. The AH professions are diverse, with mixed public, private or combined practice settings. This study explores sector differences in factors affecting retention of rural AH professionals.MethodsThis study compared respondents from the 2008 Rural Allied Health Workforce (RAHW) survey recruiting all AH professionals in rural New South Wales. Comparisons between public (n = 833) and private (n = 756) groups were undertaken using Chi square analysis to measure association for demographics, job satisfaction and intention to leave. The final section of the RAHW survey comprised 33 questions relating to retention. A factor analysis was conducted for each cohort. Factor reliability was assessed and retained factors were included in a binary logistic regression analysis for each cohort predicting intention to leave.ResultsSix factors were identified: professional isolation, participation in community, clinical demand, taking time away from work, resources and 'specialist generalist' work. Factors differed slightly between groups. A seventh factor (management) was present only in the public cohort. Gender was not a significant predictor of intention to leave. Age group was the strongest predictor of intention to leave with younger and older groups being significantly more likely to leave than middle aged.In univariate logistic analysis (after adjusting for age group), the ability to get away from work did not predict intention to leave in either group. In multivariate analysis, high clinical demand predicted intention to leave in both the public (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.08, 1.83) and private (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.15, 2.25) cohorts. Professional isolation (OR = 1.39. 95% CI = 1.11, 1.75) and Participation in community (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.13, 2.19) also contributed to the model in the public cohort.ConclusionsThis paper demonstrates differences between those working in public versus private sectors and suggests that effectiveness of policy initiatives may be improved through better targeting.