↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of outreach case management in an urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care service: a mixed methods exploratory…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of outreach case management in an urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care service: a mixed methods exploratory study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1428-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah A. Askew, Samantha J. Togni, Philip J. Schluter, Lynne Rogers, Sonya Egert, Nichola Potter, Noel E. Hayman, Alan Cass, Alex D. H. Brown

Abstract

The disparities in health and life expectancy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to non-Indigenous Australians are well documented. Chronic diseases are a leading contributor to these disparities. We aimed to determine the feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness of a case management approach to chronic disease care integrated within an urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care service. The Home-based, Outreach case Management of chronic disease Exploratory (HOME) Study provided holistic, patient centred multidisciplinary care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with chronic disease. A developmental evaluation approach supported the implementation and ongoing adaptations in the delivery of the model of care, and ensured its alignment with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' understandings of, and approaches to, health and wellbeing. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine patient participants (one interview also included a participant's spouse) and 15 health service staff and key themes were identified through an iterative reflective process. Quantitative data were collected directly from patient participants and from their medical records at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Patient participants' baseline characteristics were described using frequencies and percentages. Attrition and patterns of missing values over time were evaluated using binomial generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and mean differences in key clinical outcomes were determined using normal GEE models. Forty-one patients were recruited and nine withdrew over the 6 month period. There was no evidence of differential attrition. All participants (patients and health service staff) were very positive about the model of care. Patient participants became more involved in their health care, depression rates significantly decreased (p = 0.03), and significant improvements in systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001) and diabetes control (p = 0.05) were achieved. The exploratory nature of our study preclude any definitive statements about the effectiveness of our model of care. However, staff and patients' high levels of satisfaction and improvements in the health and wellbeing of patients are promising and suggest its feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness. Further research is required to determine its efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in improving the quality of life and quality of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living with chronic disease.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 46 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 16%
Social Sciences 21 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Psychology 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 48 35%