↓ Skip to main content

Improving the management and care of refugees in Australian hospitals: a descriptive study

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Health Review, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Improving the management and care of refugees in Australian hospitals: a descriptive study
Published in
Australian Health Review, January 2016
DOI 10.1071/ah15209
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsey Ross, Catherine Harding, Alexa Seal, Geraldine Duncan

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the present study was to investigate healthcare provider perceptions of the impact of refugee patients at two public hospitals, one rural and one urban, in designated refugee resettlement areas. Healthcare professionals' views regarding improvements that could be made in this area were also sought.Methods Two-page anonymous questionnaires containing demographic, quantitative and open-ended questions were distributed to 150 healthcare providers at each research site.Results Response rates at the rural and urban sites were 50% and 49%, respectively. Refugees were seen at least monthly by 40% of respondents. Additional support was requested by 70% of respondents. Confidence was associated with being born overseas (P = 0.029) and increased time working with refugees (rs = 0.418, P < 0.001). Only 47% of respondents felt confident managing social and psychological needs of refugees. Midwives saw refugees more than nursing and allied healthcare staff combined, and this was significant at the rural hospital (P < 0.001). Rural respondents reported that working with refugees enhanced their practice (P = 0.025), although felt significantly less confident (P < 0.001) than urban respondents. Themes that arose regarding barriers to care included language and cultural barriers, paucity of knowledge and issues accessing available services, including appropriate interpreters, Medicare eligibility and patient factors, including lack of patient trust in government systems. Desire for support was more pronounced in the rural setting (P = 0.001).Conclusions Refugees were seen frequently in both settings and most respondents requested additional support, highlighting that caring for refugees in Australian hospitals is a significant challenge. Additional support and education should be targeted to those caring for refugees most frequently, particularly midwifery services, to reduce barriers to care.What is known about the topic? Refugees are a vulnerable group, often with complex health needs. These needs are often unmet because of issues including language and cultural barriers.What does this paper add? Refugees were seen frequently in the two public hospital settings involved in the present study and most often by midwifery services. Healthcare professionals require more support, more information about available services and better access to interpreter services. These issues were more pronounced in the rural setting where very limited research exists.What are the implications for practitioners? Implementing additional support and education regarding refugee health needs could increase knowledge and confidence when managing refugees, reducing barriers to care and improving quality of care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Psychology 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,865,918
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from Australian Health Review
#305
of 933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,115
of 271,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Health Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 271,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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