Indigenous land management as primary health care: qualitative analysis from the Interplay research project in remote Australia

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: For Indigenous Australians, health transcends the absence of disease, and includes the health and wellbeing of their community and Country: their whole physical, cultural and spiritual environment. Stronger relationships with Country and greater involvement in cultural practices enhance the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, and those in more remote regions have greater access to their Country and higher levels of wellbeing. However this does not translate into improvements in clinical indicators, and Indigenous Australians in more remote regions suffer higher levels of morbidity and mortality than Indigenous people in non-remote areas, and other Australians. The Interplay research project aimed to explore how Indigenous Australians in remote regions experience high levels of wellbeing despite poor health statistics, and how services could more effectively enhance both health and wellbeing. Methods: Indigenous Australians in remote regions, together with researchers and government representatives developed a wellbeing framework, comprising government and community priorities: education, employment and health, and community, culture and empowerment respectively. To explore these priorities Indigenous community researchers recruited participants from diverse Indigenous organizations, including Indigenous land management, art, business development, education, employment, health and municipal services. Fourteen focus groups and seven interviews, involving 75 Indigenous and ten non-Indigenous service providers and users were conducted. These were recorded, transcribed and analyzed, using thematic analysis, based on the wellbeing framework. Results: Research participants highlighted Indigenous land management as a source of wellbeing, through strengthened identity and empowerment, access to traditional food sources, enjoyable physical activity, and escape from communities where high levels of alcohol are consumed. Participants described how collaboration and partnerships between services, and recognition of Indigenous languages could enhance wellbeing, while competition between services undermines wellbeing. Indigenous land management programs work across different sectors and promote collaboration between services, serving as a source of comprehensive primary health care. Conclusions: Developing primary health care to reflect distinctive health needs of Indigenous Australians will enhance their health and wellbeing, which includes their communities and Country. Indigenous land management consolidates aspects of comprehensive primary health care, providing both clinical benefits and wellbeing, and can provide a focus for service collaboration.Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation (CRC-REP, hosted by Ninti One Limited). Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation, through the Royal Australasian College of Physician

Qualitative Evaluation of a Complex Intervention to Improve Rheumatic Heart Disease Secondary Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND Rheumatic heart disease is a high-burden condition in Australian Aboriginal communities. We evaluated a stepped-wedge, community, randomized trial at 10 Aboriginal communities from 2013 to 2015. A multifaceted intervention was implemented using quality improvement and chronic care model approaches to improve delivery of penicillin prophylaxis for rheumatic heart disease. The trial did not improve penicillin adherence. This mixed-methods evaluation, designed a priori, aimed to determine the association between methodological approaches and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS An evaluation framework was developed to measure the success of project implementation and of the underlying program theory. The program theory posited that penicillin delivery would be improved through activities implemented at clinics that addressed elements of the chronic care model. Qualitative data were derived from interviews with health-center staff, informants, and clients; participant observation; and project officer reports. Quantitative data comprised numbers and types of "action items," which were developed by participating clinic staff with project officers to improve delivery of penicillin injections. Interview data from 121 health-center staff, 22 informants, and 72 clients revealed barriers to achieving the trial's aims, including project-level factors (short trial duration), implementation factors (types of activities implemented), and contextual factors (high staff turnover and the complex sociocultural environment). Insufficient actions were implemented addressing "self-management support" and "community linkage" streams of the chronic care model. Increased momentum was evident in later stages of the study. CONCLUSIONS The program theory underpinning the study was sound. The limited impact made by the study on adherence was attributable to complex implementation challenges.This study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant 1027040 and Center of Research Excellence 1080401 and by the Wesfarmers Center for Vaccines and Infectious Diseases at Telethon Kids Institute. Ralph and Maguire are supported by NHMRC fellowships (1142011 and 1046563, respectively)

Telehealth in remote Australia : a supplementary tool or an alternative model of care replacing face-to-face consultations?

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telehealth consultations by telephone and video around the world. While telehealth can improve access to primary health care, there are significant gaps in our understanding about how, when and to what extent telehealth should be used. This paper explores the perspectives of health care staff on the key elements relating to the effective use of telehealth for patients living in remote Australia. Methods: Between February 2020 and October 2021, interviews and discussion groups were conducted with 248 clinic staff from 20 different remote communities across northern Australia. Interview coding followed an inductive approach. Thematic analysis was used to group codes into common themes. Results: Reduced need to travel for telehealth consultations was perceived to benefit both health providers and patients. Telehealth functioned best when there was a pre-established relationship between the patient and the health care provider and with patients who had good knowledge of their personal health, spoke English and had access to and familiarity with digital technology. On the other hand, telehealth was thought to be resource intensive, increasing remote clinic staff workload as most patients needed clinic staff to facilitate the telehealth session and complete background administrative work to support the consultation and an interpreter for translation services. Clinic staff universally emphasised that telehealth is a useful supplementary tool, and not a stand-alone service model replacing face-to-face interactions. Conclusion: Telehealth has the potential to improve access to healthcare in remote areas if complemented with adequate face-to-face services. Careful workforce planning is required while introducing telehealth into clinics that already face high staff shortages. Digital infrastructure with reliable internet connections with sufficient speed and latency need to be available at affordable prices in remote communities to make full use of telehealth consultations. Training and employment of local Aboriginal staff as digital navigators could ensure a culturally safe clinical environment for telehealth consultations and promote the effective use of telehealth services among community members

The Iowa Homemaker vol.4, no.2

Table of Contents To the High School Girls of Iowa by Anna E. Richardson, page 3 For the College Room by Barbara Mills Dewell, page 4 The Junior-Senior Banquet by Viola Jammer and Pauline Peacock, page 4 Picnic Preparations by Louise Evans Doole, page 5 Finding Yourself by H. M. Hamlin, page 6 Stories of the Sand by Katherine Holden, page 7 Appropriate Pictures for the Home by Amanda Jacobson, page 8 The Individual Scarf by Rhea Fern Schultz, page 9 Using Your Kodak by H. P. Doole, page 10 Something Plus by Laura E. Bublitz, page 11 The Ideal Homemaker by Rosalie Larson, page 12 University Life in France by Mercie Carley, page 12 Homemaker as Citizen by Jeanette Beyer, page 13 Who’s There and Where by Dryden Quist, page 14 Editorial, page 15 The Eternal Question, page 1

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on nine research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153-03)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 T32 NS07099-01)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS14092)Health Sciences FundNational Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 RO1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

Communications Biophysics

Contains research objectives and reports on six research projects split into three sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126-07)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047-05)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 2 T32 NS07047-06)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS 77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS1284606)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 NS07099)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS14092-04)Gallaudet College SubcontractKarmazin Foundation through the Council for the Arts at M.I.T.National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 NS1691701A1)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS11080-06)National Institutes of Health (Grant GM-21189

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on ten research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS0704)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS11153)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 P01 NS14092)Karmazin Foundation through the Council for the Arts at MITNational Institutes of Health (Fellowship 5 F32 NS06386)National Science Foundation (Fellowship SP179-14913)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS11080

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on nine research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 KO4 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 1 T32 NS07099)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROI NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS14092)Edith E. Sturgis FoundationHealth Sciences FundNational Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 5 F32 NS05327)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 ROI NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on eight research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F32 NS06544)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 NS14092)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301