The application of spatial measures to analyse health service accessibility in Australia: a systematic review and recommendations for future practice

Author:

Wood Sarah M.,Alston Laura,Beks Hannah,Mc Namara Kevin,Coffee Neil T.,Clark Robyn A.,Wong Shee Anna,Versace Vincent L.

Abstract

Abstract Background Australia's inequitable distribution of health services is well documented. Spatial access relates to the geographic limitations affecting the availability and accessibility of healthcare practitioners and services. Issues associated with spatial access are often influenced by Australia's vast landmass, challenging environments, uneven population concentration, and sparsely distributed populations in rural and remote areas. Measuring access contributes to a broader understanding of the performance of health systems, particularly in rural/remote areas. This systematic review synthesises the evidence identifying what spatial measures and geographic classifications are used and how they are applied in the Australian peer-reviewed literature. Methods A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published between 2002 and 2022 was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Search terms were derived from three major topics, including: [1] Australian population; [2] spatial analysis of health service accessibility; and [3] objective physical access measures. Results Database searches retrieved 1,381 unique records. Records were screened for eligibility, resulting in 82 articles for inclusion. Most articles analysed access to primary health services (n = 50; 61%), followed by specialist care (n = 17; 21%), hospital services (n = 12; 15%), and health promotion and prevention (n = 3; 4%). The geographic scope of the 82 articles included national (n = 33; 40%), state (n = 27; 33%), metropolitan (n = 18; 22%), and specified regional / rural /remote area (n = 4; 5%). Most articles used distance-based physical access measures, including travel time (n = 30; 37%) and travel distance along a road network (n = 21; 26%), and Euclidean distance (n = 24; 29%). Conclusion This review is the first comprehensive systematic review to synthesise the evidence on how spatial measures have been applied to measure health service accessibility in the Australian context over the past two decades. Objective and transparent access measures that are fit for purpose are imperative to address persistent health inequities and inform equitable resource distribution and evidence-based policymaking.

Funder

Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship

Australian Government’s Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training program

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy

Reference142 articles.

1. Baum F, Friel S. Politics, policies and processes: a multidisciplinary and multimethods research programme on policies on the social determinants of health inequity in Australia. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12): e017772.

2. Schneider E, Shah A, Doty M, Tikkanen R, Fields K, Williams II R. Mirror, Mirror 2021 – Reflecting Poorly: Health Care in the U.S. Compared to Other High-Income Countries [Internet]. The Commonwealth Fund; 2021 p. 39. Available from: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Schneider_Mirror_Mirror_2021.pdf.

3. de Looper M, Lafortune G. Measuring Disparities in Health Status and in Access and Use of Health Care in OECD Countries [Internet]. 2009 Mar [cited 2022 Feb 17]. (OECD Health Working Papers; vol. 43). Report No.: 43. Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/measuring-disparities-in-health-status-and-in-access-and-use-of-health-care-in-oecd-countries_225748084267.

4. Peters DH, Garg A, Bloom G, Walker DG, Brieger WR, Hafizur RM. Poverty and Access to health care in developing countries. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1136(1):161–71.

5. Fullman N, Yearwood J, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abd-Allah F, Abdela J, et al. Measuring performance on the healthcare access and quality index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2016. The Lancet. 2018;391(10136):2236–71.

Cited by 7 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3