Cargando…

Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia

OBJECTIVE: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Versace, Vincent Lawrence, Coffee, Neil T., Franzon, Julie, Turner, Dorothy, Lange, Jarrod, Taylor, Danielle, Clark, Robyn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31344082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219959
_version_ 1783438859566055424
author Versace, Vincent Lawrence
Coffee, Neil T.
Franzon, Julie
Turner, Dorothy
Lange, Jarrod
Taylor, Danielle
Clark, Robyn
author_facet Versace, Vincent Lawrence
Coffee, Neil T.
Franzon, Julie
Turner, Dorothy
Lange, Jarrod
Taylor, Danielle
Clark, Robyn
author_sort Versace, Vincent Lawrence
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. RESULTS: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ(2) = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ(2) = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer’s V = 0.461, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA+ model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations–i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6657861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66578612019-08-07 Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia Versace, Vincent Lawrence Coffee, Neil T. Franzon, Julie Turner, Dorothy Lange, Jarrod Taylor, Danielle Clark, Robyn PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. RESULTS: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ(2) = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ(2) = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer’s V = 0.461, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA+ model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations–i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models. Public Library of Science 2019-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6657861/ /pubmed/31344082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219959 Text en © 2019 Versace et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Versace, Vincent Lawrence
Coffee, Neil T.
Franzon, Julie
Turner, Dorothy
Lange, Jarrod
Taylor, Danielle
Clark, Robyn
Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia
title Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia
title_full Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia
title_fullStr Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia
title_short Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia
title_sort comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in australia
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31344082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219959
work_keys_str_mv AT versacevincentlawrence comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia
AT coffeeneilt comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia
AT franzonjulie comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia
AT turnerdorothy comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia
AT langejarrod comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia
AT taylordanielle comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia
AT clarkrobyn comparisonofgeneralandcardiaccarespecificindicesofspatialaccessinaustralia