↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of access to chronic illness care: a mixed-methods evaluation of a national multifaceted chronic disease package for Indigenous Australians

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Determinants of access to chronic illness care: a mixed-methods evaluation of a national multifaceted chronic disease package for Indigenous Australians
Published in
BMJ Open, November 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie Bailie, Gill Schierhout, Alison Laycock, Margaret Kelaher, Nikki Percival, Lynette O'Donoghue, Tracy McNeair, Ross Bailie

Abstract

Indigenous Australians have a disproportionately high burden of chronic illness, and relatively poor access to healthcare. This paper examines how a national multicomponent programme aimed at improving prevention and management of chronic disease among Australian Indigenous people addressed various dimensions of access. Data from a place-based, mixed-methods formative evaluation were analysed against a framework that defines supply and demand-side dimensions to access. The evaluation included 24 geographically bounded 'sentinel sites' that included a range of primary care service organisations. It drew on administrative data on service utilisation, focus group and interview data on community members' and service providers' perceptions of chronic illness care between 2010 and 2013. Urban, regional and remote areas of Australia that have relatively large Indigenous populations. 670 community members participated in focus groups; 374 practitioners and representatives of regional primary care support organisations participated in in-depth interviews. The programme largely addressed supply-side dimensions of access with less focus or impact on demand-side dimensions. Application of the access framework highlighted the complex inter-relationships between dimensions of access. Key ongoing challenges are achieving population coverage through a national programme, reaching high-need groups and ensuring provision of ongoing care. Strategies to improve access to chronic illness care for this population need to be tailored to local circumstances and address the range of dimensions of access on both the demand and supply sides. These findings highlight the importance of flexibility in national programme guidelines to support locally determined strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Psychology 10 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 25 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,530,982
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#10,003
of 25,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,181
of 396,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#173
of 411 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 396,452 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 411 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 57% of its contemporaries.