Dataset Information

Policy makers' perceptions of the high burden of heart disease in rural Australia: Implications for the implementation of evidence-based rural health policy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rural Australian populations experience an increased burden of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) compared to their metropolitan counterparts, similar to other developed countries, globally. Policy and other efforts need to address and acknowledge these differences in order to reduce inequalities in health burden. This paper examines rural health policy makers' perceptions and use of evidence in efforts to reduce the burden of IHD in rural areas.

Methods

Policy makers and government advisors (n = 21) who worked with, or advised on, rural health policy at local, state and federal government levels, with specific focus on the state of Victoria (n = 9) were identified from publicly available documents and subsequent snowball sample. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in regards to the use of evidence in policy to prevent IHD and thematic analysis undertaken applying two theoretical perspectives: context-based evidence-based policy making and the conceptual framework for understanding rural and remote health.

Results

The rural context, particularly low resourcing, was seen as limiting potential for evidence based policy at local government (LG) level. Lower levels of political pressure and education were seen as constraints to evidence-based policy in rural communities. Participants described the potential for policy to have a greater impact on reducing heart disease in rural areas though they felt under-resourced and out of touch with the scientific evidence. Scientific studies were less valued than local anecdote to prioritise specific policy. At all levels (local, state and federal) low self-efficacy in interpreting evidence and perceived lack of relevance inhibited development of evidence informed policy.

Conclusion

The rural context constrains the use of scientific evidence in policy making for the prevention of heart disease in rural areas in Australia with multiple factors influencing the capacity for evidenced based health policy. This is similar to findings at the international scale and is for consideration across other developed countries that experience inequalities in IHD disease burden between rural and urban populations.

SUBMITTER: Alston L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6467412 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceuticals are an integral component of health care systems worldwide, thus, regulatory weaknesses in governance of the pharmaceutical system negatively impact health outcomes especially in developing countries 1. Nigeria is one of a number of countries whose pharmaceutical system has been impacted by corruption and has struggled to curtail the production and trafficking of substandard drugs. In 2001, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) underwent an organizational restructuring resulting in reforms to reduce counterfeit drugs and better regulate pharmaceuticals 2. Despite these changes, there is still room for improvement. This study assessed the perceived level of transparency and potential vulnerability to corruption that exists in four essential areas of Nigeria's pharmaceutical sector: registration, procurement, inspection (divided into inspection of ports and of establishments), and distribution.MethodsStandardized questionnaires were adapted from the World Health Organization assessment tool and used in semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the public and private pharmaceutical system. The responses to the questions were tallied and converted to scores on a numerical scale where lower scores suggested greater vulnerability to corruption and higher scores suggested lower vulnerability.ResultsThe overall score for Nigeria's pharmaceutical system was 7.4 out of 10, indicating a system that is marginally vulnerable to corruption. The weakest links were the areas of drug registration and inspection of ports. Analysis of the qualitative results revealed that the perceived level of corruption did not always match the qualitative evidence.ConclusionDespite the many reported reforms instituted by NAFDAC, the study findings suggest that facets of the pharmaceutical system in Nigeria remain fairly vulnerable to corruption. The most glaring deficiency seems to be the absence of conflict of interest guidelines which, if present and consistently administered, limit the promulgation of corrupt practices. Other major contributing factors are the inconsistency in documentation of procedures, lack of public availability of such documentation, and inadequacies in monitoring and evaluation. What is most critical from this study is the identification of areas that still remain permeable to corruption and, perhaps, where more appropriate checks and balances are needed from the Nigerian government and the international community.

Project description:The aim was (1) to perform an up-to-date systematic review of the male circumcision (MC) literature and (2) to determine the number of adverse medical conditions prevented by early MC in Australia. Searches of PubMed using “circumcision” with 39 keywords and bibliography searches yielded 278 publications meeting our inclusion criteria. Early MC provides immediate and lifetime benefits, including protection against: urinary tract infections, phimosis, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various STIs, and penile and prostate cancer. In female partners MC reduces risk of STIs and cervical cancer. A risk-benefit analysis found benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by approximately 200 to 1. It was estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. An increase in early MC in Australia to mid-1950s prevalence of 85% from the current level of 18.75% would avoid 77,000 cases of infections and other adverse medical conditions over the lifetime for each annual birth cohort. Survey data, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation indicate that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. US studies found that early infant MC is cost saving. Evidence-based reviews by the AAP and CDC support early MC as a desirable public health measure. Although MC can be performed at any age, early MC maximizes benefits and minimises procedural risks. Parents should routinely be provided with accurate, up-to-date evidence-based information in an unbiased manner early in a pregnancy so that they have time to weigh benefits and risks of early MC and make an informed decision should they have a son. Parental choice should be respected. A well-trained competent practitioner is essential and local anaesthesia should be routinely used. Third party coverage of costs is advocated.

Project description:BackgroundOpportunities exist to disseminate evidence-based cancer control strategies to state-level policy makers in both the legislative and executive branches. We explored factors that influence the likelihood that state-level policy makers will find a policy brief understandable, credible, and useful.MethodsA systematic approach was used to develop four types of policy briefs on the topic of mammography screening to reduce breast cancer mortality: data-focused brief with state-level data, data-focused brief with local-level data, story-focused brief with state-level data, and story-focused brief with local-level data. Participants were recruited from three groups of state-level policy makers-legislative staff, legislators, and executive branch administrators- in six states that were randomly chosen after stratifying all 50 states by population size and dominant political party in state legislature. Participants from each of the three policy groups were randomly assigned to receive one of the four types of policy briefs and completed a questionnaire that included a series of Likert scale items. Primary outcomes-whether the brief was understandable, credible, likely to be used, and likely to be shared-were measured by a 5-point Likert scale according to the degree of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and with classification trees. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsData on response to the policy briefs (n = 291) were collected from February through December 2009 (overall response rate = 35%). All three policy groups found the briefs to be understandable and credible, with mean ratings that ranged from 4.3 to 4.5. The likelihood of using the brief (the dependent variable) differed statistically significantly by study condition for staffers (P = .041) and for legislators (P = .018). Staffers found the story-focused brief containing state-level data most useful, whereas legislators found the data-focused brief containing state-level data most useful. Exploratory classification trees showed distinctive patterns for brief usefulness across the three policy groups.ConclusionOur results suggest that taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach when delivering information to policy makers may be less effective than communicating information based on the type of policy maker.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n?=?28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n?=?20) and epidemiologists (n?=?6) were conducted to gather qualitative data.ResultsPolicy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%).ConclusionThe policy maker's investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions' policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.

Project description:Introduction: Physicians vary widely in how they treat some health conditions, despite strong evidence favoring certain treatments over others. We examined physicians' perspectives on factors that support or hinder evidence-based decisions and the implications for delivery systems, payers, and policymakers. Methods: We used Choosing Wisely® recommendations to create four clinical vignettes for common types of decisions. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 36 specialists to identify factors that support or hinder evidence-based decisions. We examined these factors using a conceptual framework that includes six levels: patients, physicians, practice sites, organizations, networks and hospital affiliations, and the local market. In this model, population characteristics and payer and regulatory factors interact to influence decisions. Results: Patient openness to behavior modification and expectations, facilitated and hindered physicians in making evidence-based recommendations. Physicians' communication skills were the most commonly mentioned facilitator. Practice site, organization, and hospital system barriers included measures of emergency department throughput, the order in which test options are listed in electronic health records (EHR), lack of relevant decision support in EHRs, and payment incentives that maximize billing and encourage procedures rather than medical management or counseling patients on behavior change. Factors from different levels interacted to undermine evidence-based care. Most physicians received billing feedback, but quality metrics on evidence-based service use were nonexistent for the four decisions in this study. Conclusions and Implications: Additional research and quality improvement may help to modify delivery systems to overcome barriers at multiple levels. Enhancing provider communication skills, improving decision support in EHRs, modifying workflows, and refining the design and interpretation of some quality metrics would help, particularly if combined with concurrent payment reform to realign financial incentives across stakeholders.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal interest and investment in close-to-community health services is increasing. Kenya is currently revising its community health strategy (CHS) alongside political devolution, which will result in revisioning of responsibility for local services. This article aims to explore drivers of policy change from key informant perspectives and to study perceptions of current community health services from community and sub-county levels, including perceptions of what is and what is not working well. It highlights implications for managing policy change.MethodsWe conducted 40 in-depth interviews and 10 focus group discussions with a range of participants to capture plural perspectives, including those who will influence or be influenced by CHS policy change in Kenya (policymakers, sub-county health management teams, facility managers, community health extension worker (CHEW), community health workers (CHWs), clients and community members) in two purposively selected counties: Nairobi and Kitui. Qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed, translated and coded before framework analysis.ResultsThere is widespread community appreciation for the existing strategy. High attrition, lack of accountability for voluntary CHWs and lack of funds to pay CHW salaries, combined with high CHEW workload were seen as main drivers for strategy change. Areas for change identified include: lack of clear supervisory structure including provision of adequate travel resources, current uneven coverage and equity of community health services, limited community knowledge about the strategy revision and demand for home-based HIV testing and counselling.ConclusionThis in-depth analysis which captures multiple perspectives results in robust recommendations for strategy revision informed by the Five Wonders of Change Framework. These recommendations point towards a more people-centred health system for improved equity and effectiveness and indicate priority areas for action if success of policy change through the roll-out of the revised strategy is to be realized.