8 research outputs found

    Disparities in access to health care in Australia for people with mental health conditions

    Get PDF
    Objective One aim of Australia’s Equally Well National Consensus Statement is to improve monitoring of the physical health of people with mental health conditions, which includes measures of accessibility and people’s experiences of physical health care services. The present analysis contributes to this aim by using population survey data to evaluate whether, and in what domains, Australians with a mental health condition experience barriers in accessing care when compared with Australians without a mental health condition. Methods The 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey includes a sample of 5248 Australian adults. Access to care was measured using 39 survey questions from before to after reaching services. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify disparities in barriers to access, comparing experiences of people with and without a self-reported mental health condition, adjusting for age, sex, immigrant status, income and self-rated health. Results Australians with mental health conditions were more likely to experience barriers for 29 of 39 access measures (odds ratio (OR) >1.55; P < 0.05). On average, the prevalence of barriers was 10 percentage points higher for those with a condition. When measured as ratios, the largest barriers for people with mental health conditions were for affordability. When measured as percentage point differences, the largest disparities were observed for experiences of not being treated with respect in hospital. Disparities remained after adjusting for income, rurality, education, immigrant status and self-rated health for 25 of 39 measures. Conclusion Compared with the rest of the community, Australians with mental health conditions have additional challenges negotiating the health system, and are more likely to experience barriers to access to care across a wide range of measures. Understanding the extent to which people with mental health conditions experience barriers throughout the pathway to accessing care is crucial to inform care planning and delivery for this vulnerable group. Results may inform improvements in regular performance monitoring of disparities in access for people with mental health conditions. What is known about this topic? A stated national aim of the Equally Well National Consensus Statement is to improve monitoring of the physical health and well-being of people with mental health conditions through measures of service accessibility and people’s experiences of physical healthcare services. What does this paper add? This paper highlights areas in which health services are not providing equal access to overall care for people with mental health conditions. The analysis offers quantitative evidence of ‘red flag areas’ where people with mental health conditions are significantly more likely to experience barriers to access to care. What are the implications for practitioners? Systematic attention across the health system to making care more approachable and accessible for people with mental health conditions is needed. Practitioners may be engaged to discuss possible interventions to improve access disparities for people with mental health conditions

    Experiences of maternity care in New South Wales among women with mental health conditions

    Get PDF
    Background: High quality maternity care is increasingly understood to represent a continuum of care. As well as ensuring a positive experience for mothers and families, integrated maternity care is responsive to mental health needs of mothers. The aim of this paper is to summarize differences in women's experiences of maternity care between women with and without a self-reported mental health condition. Methods: Secondary analyses of a randomized, stratified sample patient experience survey of 4787 women who gave birth in a New South Wales public hospital in 2017. We focused on 64 measures of experiences of antenatal care, hospital care during and following birth and follow up at home. Experiences covered eight dimensions: overall impressions, emotional support, respect for preferences, information, involvement, physical comfort and continuity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare experiences of women with and without a self-reported longstanding mental health condition. Results: Compared to women without a condition, women with a longstanding mental health condition (n = 353) reported significantly less positive experiences by eight percentage points on average, with significant differences on 41 out of 64 measures after adjusting for age, education, language, parity, type of birth and region. Disparities were pronounced for key measures of emotional support (discussion of worries and fears, trust in providers), physical comfort (assistance, pain management) and overall impressions of care. Most women with mental health conditions (75% or more) reported positive experiences for measures related to guidelines for maternity care for women with mental illness (discussion of emotional health, healthy behaviours, weight gain). Their experiences were not significantly different from those of women with no reported conditions. Conclusions: Women with a mental health condition had significantly less positive experiences of maternity care across all stages of care compared to women with no condition. However, for some measures, including those related to guidelines for maternity care for women with mental illness, there were highly positive ratings and no significant differences between groups. This suggests disparities in experiences of care for women with mental health conditions are not inevitable. More can be done to improve experiences of maternity care for women with mental health conditions

    How does the onset of physical disability or dementia in older adults affect economic wellbeing and co-payments for health care? The impact of gender

    Get PDF
    Background: Existing studies have illustrated how the onset of physical disability or dementia negatively impacts economic wellbeing and increases out of pocket costs. However, little is known about this relationship in older individuals. Consequently, this study aimed to identify how the onset of physical disability or dementia in older adults affects economic wellbeing and out of pocket costs, and to explore the impact of gender in the context of Australia. Methods: The data was collected from a large, randomized clinical study, ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE). Two generalized linear models (with and without interaction effects) of total out of pocket costs for those who did and did not develop physical disability or dementia were generated, with adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics at baseline. Results: We included 8,568 older Australian individuals with a mean age of 74.8 years and 53.2% being females. After adjustment for the baseline sociodemographic characteristics, the onset of physical disability did statistically significantly raise out of pocket costs (cost ratio=1.25) and costs among females were 13.1% higher than males. Conclusions: This study highlights that classifying different types of health conditions to identify the drivers of out of pocket costs and to explore the gender differences in a long-term follow-up is of importance to examine the fnancial impact on the older population. These negative financial impacts and gender disparities of physical disability and dementia must be considered by policymakers.Yanan Hu, Prudence R. Carr, Danny Liew, Jonathan Broder, Emily J. Callander and John J. McNei

    Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19 : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

    Get PDF
    Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US,2020US, 2020 US per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted USpercapita,andasaproportionofgrossdomesticproduct.Weusedvariousmodelstogeneratefuturehealthspendingto2050.FindingsIn2019,healthspendinggloballyreached per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached 8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8.7-8.8) or 1132(11191143)perperson.Spendingonhealthvariedwithinandacrossincomegroupsandgeographicalregions.Ofthistotal,1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, 40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that 54.8billionindevelopmentassistanceforhealthwasdisbursedin2020.Ofthis,54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, 13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. 12.3billionwasnewlycommittedand12.3 billion was newly committed and 1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. 3.1billion(22.43.1 billion (22.4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and 2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only 714.4million(7.7714.4 million (7.7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34.3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to 1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

    Lifetime impact of injury on education, employment and income for Australians of labour force participation age

    No full text
    Background: Research shows that employment rates are low post injury. Aims: To quantify the economic impact of a long-term injury and identify whether having a tertiary level of education attainment would offset this impact. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2012 Survey of Disability, Aging and Carers, which is nationally representative of the Australian population. Results: Males with any long-term injury had incomes 41% less than males with no chronic health condition (95% confidence interval [CI] −49.3%, −31.6%). For males with a long-term injury, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of being not in the labour force between those with and without a tertiary qualification (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.45–1.52). There was no significant difference in the incomes of females with any long-term injury compared with those with no chronic health conditions. For females with a long-term injury, there was a significant difference in the likelihood of being not in the labour force between those with and without a tertiary qualification (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.80). If men with a long-term injury had the same probability of participating in the workforce as women, the percentage of men not in the labour force would reduce from 37 to 18%. Conclusions: Having a long-term injury was a significant personal cost in terms of labour force absence and lower income for males regardless of higher education attainment. For females, sustaining a long-term injury did not appear to significantly affect income

    Antenatal magnesium sulfate to prevent cerebral palsy

    No full text
    First published July 7, 2021.Magnesium sulfate given to women before birth at <30 weeks’ gestation reduces the risk of cerebral palsy in their children. Our study aimed to assess the impact of a local quality improvement programme, primarily using plan-do-study-act cycles, to increase the use of antenatal magnesium sulfate. After implementing our quality improvement programme, an average of 86% of babies delivered at <30 weeks’ gestation were exposed to antenatal magnesium sulfate compared with a historical baseline rate of 63%. Our study strengthens the case for embedding quality improvement programmes in maternal perinatal care to reduce the impact of cerebral palsy on families and society.Amy K Keir, Emily Shepherd, Sarah McIntyre, Alice Rumbold, Charlotte Groves, Caroline Crowther, Emily Joy Callande

    Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990–2050

    No full text
    Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US,2020US, 2020 US per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted USpercapita,andasaproportionofgrossdomesticproduct.Weusedvariousmodelstogeneratefuturehealthspendingto2050.FindingsIn2019,healthspendinggloballyreached per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached 8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7–8·8) or 1132(11191143)perperson.Spendingonhealthvariedwithinandacrossincomegroupsandgeographicalregions.Ofthistotal,1132 (1119–1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, 40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5–0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0–25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that 548billionindevelopmentassistanceforhealthwasdisbursedin2020.Ofthis,54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, 13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. 123billionwasnewlycommittedand12·3 billion was newly committed and 1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. 31billion(2243·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and 2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only 7144million(77714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to 1519 (1448–1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all

    Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050

    No full text
    Background The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. Methods We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US,2020US, 2020 US per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted USpercapita,andasaproportionofgrossdomesticproduct.Weusedvariousmodelstogeneratefuturehealthspendingto2050.FindingsIn2019,healthspendinggloballyreached per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. Findings In 2019, health spending globally reached 8. 8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8.7-8.8) or 1132(11191143)perperson.Spendingonhealthvariedwithinandacrossincomegroupsandgeographicalregions.Ofthistotal,1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, 40.4 billion (0.5%, 95% UI 0.5-0.5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24.6% (UI 24.0-25.1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that 54.8billionindevelopmentassistanceforhealthwasdisbursedin2020.Ofthis,54.8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, 13.7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. 12.3billionwasnewlycommittedand12.3 billion was newly committed and 1.4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. 3.1billion(22.43.1 billion (22.4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and 2.4 billion (17.9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only 714.4million(7.7714.4 million (7.7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34.3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to 1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. Interpretation Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd
    corecore