the OEP significantly reduces the risk of death and falling in older community-dwelling adults.

Background Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in late 2019, communities have been required to rapidly adopt community mitigation strategies rarely used before, or only in limited settings. This study aimed to examine the attitudes and beliefs of Australian adults towards the COVID-19 pandemic, and willingness and capacity to engage with these mitigation measures. In addition, we aimed to explore the psychosocial and demographic factors that are associated with adoption of recommended hygiene-related and avoidance-related behaviors. Methods A national cross-sectional online survey of 1420 Australian adults (18 years and older) was undertaken between the 18 and 24 March 2020. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Findings The survey of 1420 respondents found 50% (710) of respondents felt COVID-19 would 'somewhat' affect their health if infected and 19% perceived their level of risk as high or very high. 84�9% had performed �1 of the three recommended hygiene-related behaviors and 93�4% performed �1 of six avoidance-related behaviors over the last one month. Adopting avoidance behaviors was associated with trust in government/authorities (aOR: 6.0, 95% CI 2.6-11�0), higher perceived rating of effectiveness of behaviors (aOR: 4�0, 95% CI: 1�8-8�7), higher levels of perceived ability to adopt social distancing strategies (aOR: 5.0, 95% CI: 1�5-9.3), higher trust in government (aOR: 6.0, 95% CI: 2.6-11.0) and higher level of concern if self-isolated (aOR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.0).

IntroductionAustralians in rural and remote areas experience poorer health status compared with many metropolitan residents, due partly to inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) services. Building on recent research that identified PHC services which all Australians should be able to access regardless of where they live, this paper aims to define the population thresholds governing which PHC services would be best provided by a resident health worker, and to outline attendant implementation issues.MethodsA Delphi method comprising panellists with expertise in rural, remote and/or Indigenous PHC was used. Five population thresholds reflecting Australia’s diverse rural and remote geography were devised. Panellists participated in two electronic surveys. Using a Likert scale, they were asked at what population threshold each PHC service should be provided by a resident health worker. A follow-up focus group identified important underlying principles which guided the consensus process.ResultsResponse rates were high. The population thresholds for core PHC services provided by a resident worker were less in remote communities compared with rural communities. For example, the population threshold for ‘care of the sick and injured,’ was ≤100 for remote compared with 101–500 for rural communities. For ‘mental health’, ‘maternal/child health’, ‘sexual health’ and ‘public health’ services in remote communities the population threshold was 101–500, compared to 501–1000 for rural communities. Principles underpinning implementation included the fundamental importance of equity; consideration of social determinants of health; flexibility, effective expenditure of resources, tailoring services to ensure consumer acceptability, prioritising services according to need, and providing services as close to home as possible.ConclusionThis research can assist policy makers and service planners to determine the population thresholds at which PHC services should be delivered by a resident health worker, to allocate resources and provide services more equitably, and inform consumers about PHC services they can reasonably expect to access in their community.This framework assists in developing a systematic approach to strategies seeking to address existing rural–urban health workforce maldistribution, including the training of generalists as opposed to specialists, and providing necessary infrastructure in communities most in need.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0228-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.