4.0 Article

Are primary healthcare services culturally appropriate for Aboriginal people? Findings from a remote community

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 236-242

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/PY16110

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Greater Green Triangle Research Capacity Building Bursary under the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute,
  2. Australian Government Department of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored the views of key stakeholders on cultural appropriateness of primary health care (PHC) services for Aboriginal people. A total of 78 participants, including healthcare providers, administrative team members (n=24, similar to 30% of study sample) and Aboriginal community members (n=54, approximate to 70% of study sample) living in remote North West Queensland participated in the study. Outcome measures were assessed by administering survey questionnaires comprising qualitative questions and various subscales (e.g. provider behaviours and attitudes, communication, physical environment and facilities, and support from administrative staff). Descriptive statistics were used to present quantitative findings, whereas inductive thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. In contrast to the views of PHC providers, a significant number of Aboriginal people did not perceive that they were receiving culturally appropriate services. Although PHC providers acknowledged cultural awareness training for familiarising themselves with Aboriginal culture, they found the training to be general, superficial and lacking prospective evaluation. PHC providers should understand that culturally inappropriate clinical encounters generate mistrust and dissatisfaction. Therefore, a broad approach involving culturally respectful association between PHC providers, Aboriginal consumers and administrative staff is required to bring sustainable changes at the practice level to improve the health of Aboriginal people.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available