↓ Skip to main content

Context matters for primary health care access: a multi-method comparative study of contextual influences on health service access arrangements across models of primary health care

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Context matters for primary health care access: a multi-method comparative study of contextual influences on health service access arrangements across models of primary health care
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0788-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernadette Ward, Riki Lane, Julie McDonald, Gawaine Powell-Davies, Jeff Fuller, Sarah Dennis, Rachael Kearns, Grant Russell

Abstract

Equitable access to primary health care (PHC) is an important component of integrated chronic disease management. Whilst context is known to influence access to PHC, it is poorly researched. The aim of this study was to determine the contextual influences associated with access arrangements in four Australian models of integrated PHC. A multi-method comparative case study design. Purposive sampling identified four models of PHC across six sites in two Australian states. Complexity theory informed the choice of contextual factors that influenced access arrangements, which were analysed across five dimensions: availability and accommodation, affordability, acceptability, appropriateness and approachability. Semi-structured interviews, document/website analysis and non-participant observation were used to collect data from clinicians, administrative staff and other key stakeholders. Within and cross-case thematic analysis identified interactions between context and access across sites. Overall, financial viability, objectives of the PHC model and relationships with the local hospital network (LHN) underpinned access arrangements. Local supply of general practitioners and financial viability were strong influences on availability of after-hours services. Influences on affordability were difficult to determine because all models had nil/low out-of-pocket costs for general practitioner services. The biggest influence on acceptability was the goal/objectives of the PHC model. Appropriateness and to a lesser degree affordability arrangements were influenced by the relationship with the LHN. The provision of regular outreach services was strongly influenced by perceived population need, referral networks and model objectives. These findings provide valuable insights for policy makers charged with improving access arrangements in PHC services. A financially sustainable service underpins attempts to improve access that meets the needs of the service population. Smaller services may lack infrastructure and capacity, suggesting there may be a minimum size for enhancing access. Access arrangements may be facilitated by aligning the objectives between PHC, LHN and other stakeholder models. While some access arrangements are relatively easy to modify, improving resource intensive (e.g. acceptability) access arrangements for vulnerable and/or chronic disease populations will require federal and state policy levers with input from primary health networks and LHNs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 20%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 29 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,850,842
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#524
of 1,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,151
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#16
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.