Article

Self reported patterns of health service utilization: an urban-rural comparison in South Australia

South Australian Centre for Rural and Remote Health, Adelaide University, Whyalla, South Australia.
Australian Journal of Rural Health (Impact Factor: 1.55). 04/2003; 11:81-88. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1584.2003.00493.x

ABSTRACT To compare self-reported patterns of health service utilisation among residents of urban and rural South Australia. DESIGN, SETTING AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Secondary analysis of data generated by computer-assisted telephone interviews of 7377 adults done in 1995-6. Respondents were asked if they had used each of 18 different health services during the previous 12 months. Residence was classified in three ways: (1) capital city versus rest of the state, (2) by the Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas classification (RRMA) and (3) by the Accessibility and Remoteness Index for Australia classification (ARIA).
General practitioner services were most frequently used, by approximately 89% of respondents. Only 4% reported not using any service. Comparing capital city with rest of the state, modest but statistically significant differences in utilisation (P < 0.01) were measured for nine services. In eight of these nine, utilisation was higher among rural residents. Analysing by RRMA, eight services were reportedly used differently and seven of these were the same as those identified from the capital city versus rest of state comparison. Across the five ARIA categories, six previously identified services were reported as being used differentially. Overall, rural residents had a higher than expected rate of moderate and high level of health service use.
Self-reported use of a range of health services was broadly similar across urban and rural South Australia, with most cases of higher use were reported from rural areas rather than urban areas. Similar results were obtained when residence was classified in the three different ways.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
25 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose was to examine the odds of presenting with localised as opposed to more advanced cancer by place of residence to gain evidence for planning early detection initiatives. Design, settings and participant's cases of invasive cancer reported to the NSW population-based Cancer Registry for the 1980-2008 diagnostic periods. Main outcome measure(s) between 1980 and 2008, 293,848 of reported cases (40.2%), had localised cancer at diagnosis. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to determine the odds of localised cancer by place of residence for all cancers sites combined while adjusting for age, sex, period of diagnosis, socioeconomic status, migrant status and prognosis (as inferred from cancer type). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that patients from rural areas were less likely than urban patients to present with localised cancer after adjusting for other socio-demographic factors and prognosis by cancer type (regardless of how rurality was classified). The difference ranged from 4% for remote (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.98) to 14% (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.84) for very remote compared with highly accessible areas. It is estimated that a maximum of 4,205 fewer cases of localised cancer occurred in patients from rural areas over the study period than expected from the stage distribution for urban patients. Residents aged between 30 and 74 years of age at diagnosis and those living in high socioeconomic status areas were more likely to present with localised cancer. By contrast, people aged 75 years or older at diagnosis, migrants from non-English-speaking countries and people diagnosed in more recent diagnostic periods were less likely to present with localised cancer. Targeted strategies that specifically encourage earlier diagnosis and treatment that may subsequently influence better survival are required to increase the proportion of NSW residents presenting with localised cancer at diagnosis.
    Cancer Causes and Control 11/2011; 23(2):255-62. · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessing the usefulness of GP electronic medical records for assessing the health of rural populations by comparing these data with data from health interview surveys. Data from electronic medical records routinely recorded in general practices in 2000-2002. Data on self-reported health problems were obtained through questionnaires in a subset of the same patient population. According to GP-records, acute somatic and chronic diseases were more frequently presented in rural areas. At the same time self reported health problems point to a better health in rural areas. GP electronic medical records may be used to monitor the health of rural populations. These data can be obtained relatively quickly and easily and against acceptable cost. However, they do not give the same outcomes as health interview surveys. Reasons for this discrepancy may be; differences in the accessibility of specialist services and help seeking behaviour between urban and rural populations.
    Health & Place 09/2010; 16(5):893-902. · 2.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To report on satisfaction with access to health care in Queensland focussing on regional differences. A sub-sample of 4440 respondents with no history of cancer from the Queensland Cancer Risk Study who completed a self-administered questionnaire was used for this study. Perceptions of overall difficulty gaining access to health care and ratings of access to various health care services by region. Queenslanders living outside major cities reported less satisfaction with access to various aspects of health care services. Age was associated with more favourable ratings of health care access. Despite public health efforts to increase service provision throughout Queensland, health care access is still rated relatively less favourably by Queenslanders in regional and remote parts of the state. Implications: Identifying which services are difficult to access and why will assist public health policy makers in improving health service accessibility.
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 07/2008; 32(3):246-9. · 1.64 Impact Factor