Unmasking problems in rural health planning /

Mode of access: Internet.

Health care in rural Illinois : recommendations of the Rural Health Task Force.

"April, 1990."

Rural Health Program Update, 2014

Rural Health works with key partners to explore and fund innovative means of delivering rural health services.

Key Facts in Rural Health : Vulnerable Rural Counties : The Changing Rural Landscape, 2000-2010

In 2008, the U.S. experienced its worst recession since the Great Depression, particularly affecting rural America. The South Carolina Rural Health Research Center used county-level data to examine rural demographic changes over the last decade. Most counties experienced increased levels of poverty between 2000-2010. Rural counties were disproportionately affected. Rural counties experienced a growth in the 65 and older population while losing children. Rural counties gained in racial/ethnic diversity.

A rural health education, training and research network

The purpose of the Rural Health Education, Training and Research Network is to support the education and training of rural health practitioners and research in rural health through the optimum use of appropriate information and communication technologies to link and inform all individuals and organisation involved in the teaching, planning and delivery of health care in rural and remote Queensland. The health care of people in rural areas has the potential to be enhanced, through providing the rural and remote health professionals in Queensland with the same access to educational and training opportunities as their metropolitan colleagues. This consultative, coordinated approach should be cost-effective through both increasing awareness and utilisation of existing and developing networks, and through more efficient and rational use of both the basic and sophisticated technologies which support them. Technological hardware, expertise and infrastructure are already in place in Queensland to support a Rural Health Education, Training and Research Network, but are not being used to their potential, more often due to a lack of awareness of their existence and utility than to their perceived costs. Development of the network has commenced through seeding funds provided by Queensland Health. Future expansion will ensure access by health professionals to existing networks within Queensland. This paper explores the issues and implications of a network for rural health professionals in Queensland and potentially throughout Australia, with a specific focus on the implications for rural and isolated health professional.

Improved rural health through a collaborative model of care – qualitative findings

INTRODUCTION Health disparity between urban and rural regions in Australia is well-documented. In the Wheatbelt catchments of Western Australia there is higher incidence and rate of avoidable hospitalisation for chronic diseases. Structured care approach to chronic illnesses is not new but the focus has been on single disease state. A recent ARC Discovery Project on general practice nurse-led chronic disease management of diabetes, hypertension and stable ischaemic heart disease reported improved communication and better medical administration.[1] In our study we investigated the sustainability of such a multi-morbidities general practice –led collaborative model of care in rural Australia. METHODS A QUAN(qual) design was utilised. Eight pairs of rural general practices were matched. Inclusion criteria used were >18 years and capable of giving informed consent, at least one identified risk factor or diagnosed with chronic conditions. Patients were excluded if deemed medically unsuitable. A comprehensive care plan was formulated by the respective general practice nurse in consultation with the treating General Practitioner (GP) and patient based on the individual’s readiness to change, and was informed by available local resource. A case management approach was utilised. Shediaz-Rizkallah and Lee’s conceptual framework on sustainability informed our evaluation.[2] Our primary outcome on measures of sustainability was reduction in avoidable hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were patients and practitioners acceptance and satisfaction, and changes to pre-determined interim clinical and process outcomes. RESULTS The qualitative interviews highlighted the community preference for a ‘sustainable’ local hospital in addition to general practice. Costs, ease of access, low prioritisation of self chronic care, workforce turnover and perception of losing another local resource if underutilised influenced the respondents’ decision to present at local hospital for avoidable chronic diseases regardless. CONCLUSIONS Despite the pragmatic nature of rural general practice in Australia, the sustainability of chronic multi-morbidities management in general practice require efficient integration of primary-secondary health care and consideration of other social determinants of health. What this study adds: What is already known on this subject: Structured approach to chronic disease management is not new and has been shown to be effective for reducing hospitalisation. However, the focus has been on single disease state. What does this study add: Sustainability of collaborative model of multi-morbidities care require better primary-secondary integration and consideration of social determinants of health.

An `upside-down` view of rural health care

Access to high quality health care services plays an important part in the health of rural communities and individuals. This fact is reflected in efforts by governments to improve the quality of such services through better targeting of funds and more efficient management of services. In Australia, the difficulties experienced by rural communities in attracting and retaining doctors has long been recognized as a contributing factor to the relatively higher levels of morbidity and mortality in rural areas. However, this paper, based on a study of two small rural communities in Australia, suggests that resolving the health problems of rural communities will require more than simply increasing the quality and accessibility of health services. Health and well-being in such communities relates as much to the sense of community cohesion as it does to the direct provision of medical services. Over recent years, that cohesion has diminished, undermined in part by government policies that have fuelled an exodus from small rural communities to urban areas. Until governments begin to take an 'upside-down' perspective, focusing on building healthy communities rather than simply on building hospitals to make communities healthy, the disadvantages faced by rural people will continue to be exacerbated.<br />

Overweight, obesity and metabolic syndrome in rural southeastern Australia

<b>OBJECTIVE</b>: To measure the prevalence of overweight, obesity and the metabolic syndrome (MetS) in rural Australia. <br /><br /><b>DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS</b>: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in two rural areas in Victoria and South Australia in 2004-2005. A stratified random sample of men and women aged 25-74 years was selected from the electoral roll. Data were collected by a self-administered questionnaire, physical measurements and laboratory tests. <br /><br /><b>MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES</b>: Prevalence of overweight and obesity, as defined by body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference; prevalence of MetS and its components. <br /><br /><b>RESULTS</b>: Data on 806 participants (383 men and 423 women) were analysed. Based on BMI, the prevalence of overweight and obesity combined was 74.1% (95% CI, 69.7%-78.5%) in men and 64.1% (95% CI, 59.5%-68.7%) in women. Based on waist circumference, the prevalence of overweight and obesity was higher in women (72.4%; 95% CI, 68.1%-76.7%) than men (61.9%; 95% CI, 57.0%-66.8%). The overall prevalence of obesity was 30.0% (95% CI, 26.8%-33.2%) based on BMI (&gt; or = 30.0 kg/m(2)) and 44.7% (95% CI, 41.2%-48.1%) based on waist circumference (&gt; or = 102 cm [men] and &gt; or= 88 cm [women]). The prevalence of MetS as defined by the US National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III 2005 criteria was 27.1% (95% CI, 22.7%-31.6%) in men and 28.3% (95% CI, 24.0%-32.6%) in women; based on International Diabetes Federation criteria, prevalences for men and women were 33.7% (95% CI, 29.0%-38.5%) and 30.1% (95% CI, 25.7%-34.5%), respectively. Prevalences of MetS, central (abdominal) obesity, hyperglycaemia, hypertension and hypertriglyceridaemia increased with age. <br /><br /><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>: In rural Australia, prevalences of MetS, overweight and obesity are very high. Urgent population-wide action is required to tackle the problem.<br />

Building capacity for rural health : the role of boundary crossers in coalition maturity for partnerships with external agents

The concept of partnership has entered policy rhetoric and is urged as good practice in a variety of domains including health. Rural communities tend to have fewer resources available for the provision of services such as health than their metropolitan counterparts, and so could be expected to benefit from partnerships with external agencies. Indicators of coalition maturity for working in partnership with external agents in order to build stronger communities are distilled from the group development and partnership research literature and considered in the light of the experiences of the University Department of Rural Health in community engagement. The chapter draws on experiences of two rural community coalitions working to plan and negotiate health service provision. The coalitions were analysed against the indicators. A key indicator of maturity and readiness for working in partnership with external agents is related to the behaviour of &lsquo;boundary crossers&rsquo;. Boundary crossers are defined as people who move freely between two or more domains and who understand the values, cultures and language, and have the trust, of both. Domains can be within a community or be the community and an external sector. Community health professionals, especially those in senior positions, often act as boundary crossers between the community and broader domains such as regional/state health services or policy, although other community members can fill the role. Other key indicators of coalition maturity for working in partnership with external agents include local leadership that empowers the community, a willingness of community coalitions to take risks and mould opportunities to meet their vision, and a culture of critical reflection and evaluation of past actions.<br /><br />This chapter analyses the impact of boundary crossing behaviour on community readiness and partnerships with external agents that are intended to build rural community capacity to plan and negotiate health service provision. It is argued that the characteristics and modus operandi of boundary crossers who are members of rural community coalitions affect the level of maturity of the coalitions and community readiness to work with external agents. An understanding of the characteristics and modus operandi of boundary crossers provides valuable insights for external agents in designing their approach to partnerships that build rural community capacity for health.<br />