Dataset Information

The relationship of primary care providers to dental practitioners in rural and remote Australia.

ABSTRACT: Rural residents have poorer oral health and more limited access to dental services than their city counterparts. In rural communities, health care professionals often work in an extended capacity due to the needs of the community and health workforce shortages in these areas. Improved links and greater collaboration between resident rural primary care and dental practitioners could help improve oral health service provision such that interventions are both timely, effective and lead to appropriate follow-up and referral. This study examined the impact oral health problems had on primary health care providers; how primary care networks could be more effectively utilised to improve the provision of oral health services to rural communities; and identified strategies that could be implemented to improve oral health.Case studies of 14 rural communities across three Australian states. Between 2013 and 2016, 105 primary and 12 dental care providers were recruited and interviewed. Qualitative data were analysed in Nvivo 10 using thematic analysis. Quantitative data were subject to descriptive analysis using SPSSv20.Rural residents presented to primary care providers with a range of oral health problems from "everyday" to "10 per month". Management by primary care providers commonly included short-term pain relief, antibiotics, and advice that the patient see a dentist. The communication between non-dental primary care providers and visiting or regional dental practitioners was limited. Participants described a range of strategies that could contribute to better oral health and oral health oral services in their communities.Rural oral health could be improved by building oral health capacity of non-dental care providers; investing in oral health promotion and prevention activities; introducing more flexible service delivery practices to meet the dental needs of both public and private patients; and establishing more effective communication and referral pathways between rural primary and visiting/regional dental care providers.

SUBMITTER: Barnett T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5540496 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The relationship of primary care providers to dental practitioners in rural and remote Australia.

Barnett Tony T Hoang Ha H Stuart Jackie J Crocombe Len L

BMC health services research 20170801 1

<h4>Background</h4>Rural residents have poorer oral health and more limited access to dental services than their city counterparts. In rural communities, health care professionals often work in an extended capacity due to the needs of the community and health workforce shortages in these areas. Improved links and greater collaboration between resident rural primary care and dental practitioners could help improve oral health service provision such that interventions are both timely, effective an ...[more]

PMID: 28764806

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: There are significant health status inequalities in Australia between those people living in rural and remote locations and people living in metropolitan centres. Since almost ninety percent of the population use some form of primary health care service annually, a logical initial step in reducing the disparity in health status is to improve access to health care by specifying those primary health care services that should be considered as "core" and therefore readily available to all Australians regardless of where they live. A systematic review was undertaken to define these "core" services.Using the question "What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access?", the objective of this paper is to delineate those primary health care core services that should be readily available to all regardless of geography. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases was undertaken. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Key informants were accessed to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were assessed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 19 papers (7 papers from the peer-reviewed database search and 12 from other grey sources) which met the inclusion criteria. The 19 papers demonstrated substantial variability in both the number and nature of core services. Given this variation, the specification or synthesis of a universal set of core services proved to be a complex and arguably contentious task. Nonetheless, the different primary health care dimensions that should be met through the provision of core services were developed. In addition, the process of identifying core services provided important insights about the need to deliver these services in ways that are "fit-for-purpose" in widely differing geographic contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a suite of core primary health care services is a difficult process. Such a suite should be fit-for-purpose, relevant to the context, and its development should be methodologically clear, appropriate, and evidence-based. The value of identifying core PHC services to both consumers and providers for service planning and monitoring and consequent health outcomes is paramount.

Project description:BackgroundNaturopathy 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThere 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.

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance is an emerging problem worldwide and poses a significant threat to human health. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are being implemented in health systems globally, primarily in hospitals, to address the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance. Despite the significance of primary health care services in providing health care to communities, antimicrobial stewardship programmes are not well established in this sector, especially in rural and remote settings. This narrative review aims to identify in rural and remote primary health care settings the (1) correlation of antimicrobial resistance with antibiotic prescribing and volume of antibiotic use, (2) appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, (3) risk factors associated with inappropriate use/prescribing of antibiotics, and (4) effective antimicrobial stewardship strategies.MethodsThe international literature was searched for English only articles between 2000 and 2020 using specified keywords. Seven electronic databases were searched: Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, Ovid Medline and Ovid Emcare. Publication screening and analysis were conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review tools.ResultsFifty-one eligible articles were identified. Inappropriate and excessive antimicrobial prescribing and use directly led to increases in antimicrobial resistance. Increasing rurality of practice is associated with disproportionally higher rates of inappropriate prescribing compared to those in metropolitan areas. Physician knowledge, attitude and behaviour play important roles in mediating antimicrobial prescribing, with strong intrinsic and extrinsic influences including patient factors. Antimicrobial stewardship strategies in rural and remote primary health care settings focus on health care provider and patient education, clinician support systems, utility of antimicrobial resistance surveillance, and policy changes. Results of these interventions were generally positive with decreased antimicrobial resistance rates and improved appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.ConclusionsInappropriate prescribing and excessive use of antimicrobials are an important contributor to the increasing resistance towards antimicrobial agents particularly in rural and remote primary health care. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes in the form of education, clinical support, surveillance, and policies have been mostly successful in reducing prescribing rates and inappropriate prescriptions. The narrative review highlighted the need for longer interventions to assess changes in antimicrobial resistance rates. The review also identified a lack of differentiation between rural and remote contexts and Indigenous health was inadequately addressed. Future research should have a greater focus on effective interventional components and patient perspectives.

Project description:BackgroundSubstance use frequently goes undetected in primary care. Though barriers to implementing systematic screening for alcohol and drug use have been examined in urban settings, less is known about screening in rural primary care.ObjectiveTo identify current screening practices, barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for the implementation of substance use screening in rural federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).DesignAs part of a multi-phase study implementing electronic health record-integrated screening, focus groups (n = 60: all stakeholder groups) and individual interviews (n = 10 primary care providers (PCPs)) were conducted.ParticipantsThree stakeholder groups (PCPs, medical assistants (MAs), and patients) at three rural FQHCs in Maine.ApproachFocus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed. Themes surrounding current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for implementation were identified and organized by the Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework.Key resultsIdentifying the problem: Stakeholders unanimously agreed that screening is important, and that universal screening is preferred to targeted approaches. Adapting to the local context: PCPs and MAs agreed that screening should be done annually. Views were mixed regarding the delivery of screening; patients preferred self-administered, tablet-based screening, while MAs and PCPs were divided between self-administered and face-to-face approaches. Assessing barriers: For patients, barriers to screening centered around a perceived lack of rapport with providers, which contributed to concerns about trust, judgment, and privacy. For PCPs and MAs, barriers included lack of comfort, training, and preparedness to address screening results and offer treatment.ConclusionsThough stakeholders agree on the importance of implementing universal screening, concerns about the patient-provider relationship, the consequences of disclosure, and privacy appear heightened by the rural context. Findings highlight that strong relationships with providers are critical for patients, while in-clinic resources and training are needed to increase provider comfort and preparedness to address substance use.

Dataset Information

The relationship of primary care providers to dental practitioners in rural and remote Australia.

Publications

The relationship of primary care providers to dental practitioners in rural and remote Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets