Carey Timothy A, Sirett David, Russell Deborah, Humphreys John S, Wakerman John
Centre for Remote Health, Flinders University, PO Box 4066, Alice Springs, NT, 0871, Australia.
School of Rural Health, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 19;18(1):476. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3269-5.
Visiting services address the problem of workforce deficit and access to effective primary health care services in isolated remote and rural locations. Little is known about their impact or effectiveness and thereby the extent to which they are helping to reduce the disparity in access and health outcomes between people living in remote areas compared with people living in urban regions of Australia. The objective of this study was to answer the question "What is the impact or effectiveness when different types of primary health care services visit, rather than reside in, rural and remote communities?"
We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases. We also searched relevant websites for 'grey' literature and contacted several key informants to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were reviewed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Initially, 345 papers were identified and, from this selection, 17 papers were considered relevant for inclusion. Following full paper review, another ten papers were excluded leaving seven papers that provided some information about the impact or effectiveness of visiting services. The papers varied with regard to study design (ranging from cluster randomised controlled trials to a case study), research quality, and the strength of their conclusions. In relation to effectiveness or impact, results were mixed. There was a lack of consistent data regarding the features or characteristics of visiting services that enhance their effectiveness or impact. Almost invariably the evaluations assessed the service provided but only two papers mentioned any aspect of the visiting features within which service provision occurred such as who did the visiting and how often they visited.
There is currently an inadequate evidence base from which to make decisions about the effectiveness of visiting services or how visiting services should be structured in order to achieve better health outcomes for people living in remote and rural areas. Given this knowledge gap, we suggest that more rigorous evaluation of visiting services in meeting community health needs is required, and that evaluation should be guided by a number of salient principles.
上门服务解决了劳动力短缺问题,以及在偏远农村地区获得有效初级卫生保健服务的问题。对于其影响或效果,以及它们在多大程度上有助于缩小澳大利亚偏远地区居民与城市地区居民在获得医疗服务和健康结果方面的差距,人们知之甚少。本研究的目的是回答“不同类型的初级卫生保健服务上门而非驻留在农村和偏远社区时,其影响或效果如何?”这一问题。
我们对来自既定数据库的同行评审文献进行了系统综述。我们还在相关网站上搜索了“灰色”文献,并联系了几位关键信息提供者以确定其他相关参考资料。所有论文均由至少两名评估人员根据商定的纳入和排除标准进行评审。
最初识别出345篇论文,从中筛选出17篇被认为符合纳入标准。在对全文进行评审后,又排除了10篇论文,剩下7篇提供了有关上门服务影响或效果的一些信息的论文。这些论文在研究设计(从整群随机对照试验到案例研究)、研究质量和结论的力度方面各不相同。关于有效性或影响,结果不一。缺乏关于能提高上门服务有效性或影响的特征或特点的一致数据。几乎所有评估都只评估了所提供的服务,但只有两篇论文提到了提供服务时上门服务特征的任何方面,比如谁上门以及上门的频率。
目前缺乏足够的证据基础来决定上门服务的有效性,或者为了使偏远和农村地区居民获得更好的健康结果,上门服务应如何构建。鉴于这一知识空白,我们建议需要对上门服务满足社区健康需求的情况进行更严格的评估,并且这种评估应以一些重要原则为指导。