Background The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the potential decrease in access and utilisation of general practice services and its impact on patient care. In March 2020, the Australian Government introduced telehealth services to ensure that people more vulnerable to COVID-19 do not delay routine care from their general practitioners. Evidence about patients’ experience of telehealth and its impact on patient care is scarce. This study aimed to investigate the experience with telehealth by Australian general practice patients at high risk of poor health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 30 patients from nine general practices in metropolitan Adelaide (May–June 2020). Participants were identified by their regular doctor as being at high risk of poor health outcomes. Interviews sought participants’ perspectives and experiences about telehealth services in the general practice setting during COVID-19, and the value of offering continued telehealth services post pandemic. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using a coding structure developed based on deductive codes derived from the research questions and any additional concepts that emerged inductively from interviews. Results Participants expressed satisfaction with telehealth including convenient and timely access to general practice services. Yet, participants identified challenges including difficulties in expressing themselves and accessing physical exams. Prescription renewal, discussing test results and simple follow-ups were the most common reasons that telehealth was used. Telehealth was mainly via phone that better suited those with low digital literacy. Participants indicated that an existing doctor-patient relationship was important for telehealth services to be effective. Subjects believed that telehealth services should be continued but needed to be combined with opportunities for face-to-face consultations after the COVID-19 pandemic was over. Conclusions The expansion of telehealth supported access to general practice including chronic disease management during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the future, telehealth in Australia is likely to have a stronger place in primary healthcare policy and practice and an increased acceptance amongst patients.

Objective: There is little literature on health‐service‐level strategies for culturally respectful care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We conducted two case studies, which involved one Aboriginal community controlled health care service and one state government‐managed primary health care service, to examine cultural respect strategies, client experiences and barriers to cultural respect. Methods: Data were drawn from 22 interviews with staff from both services and four community assessment workshops, with a total of 21 clients. Results: Staff and clients at both services reported positive appraisals of the achievement of cultural respects. Strategies included: being grounded in a social view of health, including advocacy and addressing social determinants; employing Aboriginal staff; creating a welcoming service; supporting access through transport, outreach, and walk‐in centres; and integrating cultural protocol. Barriers included: communication difficulties; racism and discrimination; and externally developed programs. Conclusions: Service‐level strategies were necessary to achieving cultural respect. These strategies have the potential to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing. Implications: Primary health care's social determinants of health mandate, the community controlled model, and the development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce need to be supported to ensure a culturally respectful health system.

Background: Community Health Workers (CHWs) are proven to be highly effective in low- and middle-income countries with many examples of successful large-scale programs. There is growing interest in deploying CHW programs in high-income countries to address inequity in healthcare access and outcomes amongst population groups facing disadvantage. This study is the first that examines the scope and potential value of CHW programs in Australia and the challenges involved in integrating CHWs into the health system. The potential for CHWs to improve health equity is explored. Methods: Academic and grey literature was searched to examine existing CHW roles in the Australian primary healthcare system. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 11 people including policymakers, program managers and practitioners, to develop an understanding of policy and practice. Results: Literature on CHWs in Australia is sparse, yet combined with interview data indicates CHWs conduct a broad range of roles, including education, advocacy and basic clinical services, and work with a variety of communities experiencing disadvantage. Many, and to some extent inconsistent, terms are used for CHWs, reflecting the various strategies employed by CHWs, the characteristics of the communities they serve, and the health issues they address. The role of aboriginal health workers (AHWs) is comparatively well recognised, understood and documented in Australia with evidence on their contribution to overcoming cultural barriers and improving access to health services. Ethnic health workers assist with language barriers and increase the cultural appropriateness of services. CHWs are widely seen to be well accepted and valuable, facilitating access to health services as a trusted ‘bridge’ to communities. They work best where ‘health’ is conceived to include action on social determinants and service models are less hierarchical. Short term funding models and the lack of professional qualifications and recognition are challenges CHWs encounter. Conclusion: CHWs serve a range of functions in various contexts in Australian primary healthcare (PHC) with a common, valued purpose of facilitating access to services and information for marginalised communities. CHWs offer a promising opportunity to enhance equity of access to PHC for communities facing disadvantage, especially in the face of rising chronic disease.

This paper applies a critical analysis of the impact of neo-liberal driven management reform to examine changes in Australian primary health care (PHC) services over five years. The implementation of comprehensive approaches to primary health care (PHC) in seven services: five state-managed and two non-government organisations (NGOs) was tracked from 2009 to 2014. Two questions are addressed: 1) How did the ability of Australian PHC services to implement comprehensive PHC change over the period 2009-2014? 2) To what extent is the ability of the PHC services to implement comprehensive PHC shaped by neo-liberal health sector reform processes? The study reports on detailed tracking and observations of the changes and in-depth interviews with 63 health service managers and practitioners, and regional and central health executives. The documented changes were: in the state-managed services (although not the NGOs) less comprehensive service coverage and more focus on clinical services and integration with hospitals and much less development activity including community development, advocacy, intersectoral collaboration and attention to the social determinants. These changes were found to be associated with practices typical of neo-liberal health sector reform: considerable uncertainty, more directive managerial control, budget reductions and competitive tendering and an emphasis on outputs rather than health outcomes. We conclude that a focus on clinical service provision, while highly compatible with neo-liberal reforms, will not on its own produce the shifts in population disease patterns that would be required to reduce demand for health services and promote health. Comprehensive PHC is much better suited to that task.

No abstract

Study participants would welcome having access to a human milk bank for both donating and receiving milk in South Australia.

Changing settings to be more supportive of health and healthy choices is an optimum way to improve population health and health equity. This article uses the World Health Organisation's (1998) (WHO Health Promotion Glossary. WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Promotion, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, NSW) definition of settings approaches to health promotion as those focused on modifying settings' structure and nature. A rapid literature review was undertaken in the period June-August 2014, combining a systematically conducted search of two major databases with targeted searches. The review focused on identifying what works in settings approaches to address the social determinants of health inequities, using Fair Foundations: the VicHealth framework for health equity. This depicts the social determinants of health inequities as three layers of influence, and entry points for action to promote health equity. The evidence review identified work in 12 settings (cities; communities and neighbourhoods; educational; healthcare; online; faith-based; sports; workplaces; prisons; and nightlife, green and temporary settings), and work at the socioeconomic, political and cultural context layer of the Fair Foundations framework (governance, legislation, regulation and policy). It located a relatively small amount of evidence that settings themselves are being changed in ways which address the social determinants of health inequities. Rather, many initiatives focus on individual behaviour change within settings. There is considerable potential for health promotion professionals to focus settings work more upstream and so replace or integrate individual approaches with those addressing daily living conditions and higher level structures, and a significant need for programmes to be evaluated for differential equity impacts and published to provide a more solid evidence base.

This study suggests that population-based screening programs may need to be modified to facilitate access and participation among minority populations and Indigenous people if equity in screening is to be achieved.