Which dimensions of access are most important when rural residents decide to visit a general practitioner for non-emergency care?
Bernadette Ward A C D , John Humphreys A C , Matthew McGrail A C , John Wakerman B C and Marita Chisholm A CA School of Rural Health, Monash University, PO Box 666, Bendigo, Vic. 3552, Australia. Email: john.humphreys@monash.edu; matthew.mcgrail@monash.edu; marita.chisholm@monash.edu
B Centre for Remote Health, A Joint Centre of Flinders University & Charles Darwin University, PO Box 4066, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia. Email: john.wakerman@flinders.edu.au
C Centre of Research Excellence in Rural and Remote Primary Health Care, Bendigo, Vic. 3552, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: bernadette.ward@monash.edu
Australian Health Review 39(2) 121-126 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14030
Submitted: 14 February 2014 Accepted: 29 October 2014 Published: 22 December 2014
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2015
Abstract
Objective Access to primary healthcare (PHC) services is key to improving health outcomes in rural areas. Unfortunately, little is known about which aspect of access is most important. The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of different dimensions of access in the decisions of rural Australians to utilise PHC provided by general practitioners (GP).
Methods Data were collected from residents of five communities located in ‘closely’ settled and ‘sparsely’ settled rural regions. A paired-comparison methodology was used to quantify the relative importance of availability, distance, affordability (cost) and acceptability (preference) in relation to respondents’ decisions to utilise a GP service for non-emergency care.
Results Consumers reported that preference for a GP and GP availability are far more important than distance to and cost of the service when deciding to visit a GP for non-emergency care. Important differences in rankings emerged by geographic context, gender and age.
Conclusions Understanding how different dimensions of access influence the utilisation of PHC services is critical in planning the provision of PHC services. This study reports how consumers ‘trade-off’ the different dimensions of access when accessing GP care in rural Australia. The results show that ensuring ‘good’ access requires that policymakers and planners should consider other dimensions of access to services besides geography.
What is known about the topic? Research indicates that poorer ‘access’ to GPs, an impediment to seeking primary care at times of need, is the most important factor distinguishing rural from urban health service utilisation behaviour, which undoubtedly contributes to the poorer health outcomes characterising rural and remote populations. Much of the policy on access to date has focussed on increasing the number of GP located in rural and remote areas that are characterised by acute medical workforce shortages.
What does this paper add? This study provides empirical data to show how different dimensions of access influence rural Australians’ decisions to utilise a GP service. Overall, rural Australians rank preference for a GP as the most important factor in their decision to visit a doctor for a non-emergency consultation. Important differences in rankings emerged by geographic context, gender and age. Distance to a GP service ranks consistently as the third most important access factor and cost is rated the least important aspect of access.
What are the implications for practitioners? Although current rural health policies and incentives should continue to target the need to increase the availability of GP in non-metropolitan areas, this alone may not be sufficient to improve GP service utilisation. Other dimensions of access, particularly consumer preference, which are amenable to interventions both nationally and locally, are equally important.
References
[1] Department of Health and Ageing. Building a 21st century primary health care system: Australia’s first national primary health care strategy. Canberra: Australian Government; 2010.[2] Koh HK, Sebelius KG. Promoting prevention through the affordable care act. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 1296–9.
| Promoting prevention through the affordable care act.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXht1Wqs7rJ&md5=164706754e30f8d0783377d5464a0879CAS | 20879876PubMed |
[3] Veitch PC. Anticipated response to three common injuries by rural and remote area residents. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41 739–45.
| Anticipated response to three common injuries by rural and remote area residents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK28%2FkvFeiuw%3D%3D&md5=d53cf84b64239c0fcfaad47af2880c7cCAS | 7502106PubMed |
[4] Australian National Audit Office. Rural and remote health workforce capacity – the contribution made by programs administered by the Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
[5] Bywood P, Raven M, Butler C. Telehealth in primary health care settings within Australia and internationally. Adelaide: Primary Health Care Research & Information Service; 2013.
[6] Senate Community Affairs Committee. Commonwealth Government Response To The Inquiry Into Patient Assisted Travel Schemes Highway to Health: Better Access For Rural, Regional And Remote Patients, February 2010. Australian Government, Canberra. Available at: http://nrha.org.au/hcrra/sites/default/files/media/response%20to%20pats%20inquiry.pdf [accessed 25 November 2014].
[7] Wakerman J, Curry R, McEldowney R. Fly in/fly out health services: the panacea or the problem? Rural Remote Health 2012; 12 2268
| 22794666PubMed |
[8] Wang F, Luo W. Assessing spatial and nonspatial factors for healthcare access: towards an integrated approach to defining health professional shortage areas. Health Place 2005; 11 131–46.
| Assessing spatial and nonspatial factors for healthcare access: towards an integrated approach to defining health professional shortage areas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15629681PubMed |
[9] McGrail MR, Humphreys JS. The index of rural access: an innovative integrated approach for measuring primary care access. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9 124
| The index of rural access: an innovative integrated approach for measuring primary care access.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19624859PubMed |
[10] Ngui AN, Apparicio P. Optimizing the two-step floating catchment area method for measuring spatial accessibility to medical clinics in Montreal. BMC Health Serv Res 2011; 11 166
| Optimizing the two-step floating catchment area method for measuring spatial accessibility to medical clinics in Montreal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21745402PubMed |
[11] Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care 1981; 19 127–40.
| The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL3M7kslahug%3D%3D&md5=37f723be268b2eee986d13ec8641abdcCAS | 7206846PubMed |
[12] Russell DJ, Humphreys JS, Ward B, Chisolm M, Buykx P, McGrail M, Wakerman J. Helping policymakers address rural health access problems. Aust J Rural Health 2013; 21 61–71.
| Helping policymakers address rural health access problems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23586567PubMed |
[13] Levesque J-F, Harris M, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health 2013; 12 18
| Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23496984PubMed |
[14] Jones G, Savage E, Hall J. Pricing of general practice in Australia: some recent proposals to reform Medicare. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9 63–8.
| Pricing of general practice in Australia: some recent proposals to reform Medicare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15511328PubMed |
[15] Australian Bureau of Statistics. ASGC remoteness classification: purpose and use. Canberra: ABS; 2003.
[16] Australia Post. Unaddressed mail localities and postcodes Melbourne 2012. Available at: http://auspost.com.au/business-solutions/localities-and-postcodes.html [verified 25 November 2014].
[17] David H. The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffin and Co.; 1969.
[18] Siegel S. Measures of correlation and their tests of signficance. In Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill; 1956. pp. 195–241.
[19] Rolfe A, Cash-Gibson L, Car J, Sheikh A, McKinstry B. Interventions for improving patients’ trust in doctors and groups of doctors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 3 CD004134
| 24590693PubMed |
[20] Humphreys JS, Mathews-Cowey S, Weinand H. Factors in accessibility of general practice in rural Australia. Med J Aust 1997; 166 577–80.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK2szksVyjuw%3D%3D&md5=c3bce598cc7a86028ac3164eaca21b25CAS | 9201176PubMed |
[21] Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Report on the Audit of Health Workforce in Rural and Regional Australia, April 2008. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2008.
[22] Dolja-Gore X, Byles JE, Loxton DJ, Hockey R, Dobson A. Increased bulk-billing for general practice consultations in regional and remote areas, 2002–2008. Med J Aust 2011; 195 203–4.
| 21843125PubMed |
[23] Sinclair M, O’Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K. Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12 132
| Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22938205PubMed |
[24] Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census quick stats 2012. Canberra: ABS; 2011.
[25] Britt H, Miller GC, Henderson J, Charles J, Valenti L, Harrison C, Bayram C, Chambers T, Wong C, Pan Y, Gordon J, Pollack AJ. A decade of Australian general practice activity 2004–05 to 2013–14. General practice series no. 37. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2014. Available at: <purl.library.usyd.edu.au/sup/9781743324233 [accessed 25 November 2014].
[26] McRae I, Yen L, Gillespie J, Douglas K. Patient affiliation with GPs in Australia: who is and who is not and does it matter? Health Policy 2011; 103 16–23.
| Patient affiliation with GPs in Australia: who is and who is not and does it matter?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20888058PubMed |
[27] McGrail MR, Humphreys JS, Joyce CM, Scott A. International medical graduates mandated to practise in rural Australia are highly unsatisfied: results from a national survey of doctors. Health Policy 2012; 108 133–9.
| International medical graduates mandated to practise in rural Australia are highly unsatisfied: results from a national survey of doctors.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23116629PubMed |
