↓ Skip to main content

Equitable resourcing of primary health care in remote communities in Australia’s Northern Territory: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, June 2017
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 (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Equitable resourcing of primary health care in remote communities in Australia’s Northern Territory: a pilot study
Published in
BMC Family Practice, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12875-017-0646-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Wakerman, Lisa Sparrow, Susan L Thomas, John S Humphreys, Mike Jones

Abstract

Improved Primary Health Care (PHC) utilisation is central to reducing the unacceptable morbidity and mortality rates characterising populations living in remote communities. Despite poorer health, significant inequity characterises the funding of PHC services in Australia's most remote areas. This pilot study sought to ascertain what funding is required to ensure equitable access to sustainable, high quality primary health care irrespective of geographical remoteness of communities. High performing remote Primary Health Care (PHC) services were selected using improvement measures from the Australian Primary Care Collaboratives Program and validated by health experts. Eleven PHC services provided data relating to the types of services provided, level of service utilisation, human resources, operating and capital expenses. A further four services that provide visiting PHC to remote communities provided information on the level and cost of these services. Demographic data for service catchment areas (including estimated resident population, age, Indigenous status, English spoken at home and workforce participation) were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 census. Formal statistical inference (p-values) were derived in the linear regression via the nonparametric bootstrap. A direct linear relationship was observed between the total cost of resident PHC services and population, while cost per capita decreased with increasing population. Services in smaller communities had a higher number of nursing staff per 1000 residents and provided more consultations per capita than those in larger communities. The number of days of visiting services received by a community each year also increased with population. A linear regression with bootstrapped statistical inference predicted a significant regression equation where the cost of resident services per annum is equal to $1,251,893.92 + ($1698.83 x population) and the cost of resident and visiting services is equal to $1,378,870.85 + ($2600.00 x population). The research findings provide empirical evidence based on real costs to guide funding for remote PHC services that takes into account the safety and equity requirements for a minimum viable service. This method can be used as a transparent, coordinated approach to ensure the equitable delivery of sustainable, high quality PHC in remote communities. This will in turn contribute to improved health outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 9 28%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 22%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,735,198
of 11,729,435 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#250
of 1,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,056
of 263,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,729,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 263,558 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them