4.0 Article

Indigenous women's expectations of clinical care during treatment for a gynaecological cancer: rural and remote differences in expectations

Journal

AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 99-103

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AH09800

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Government
  2. National Institute of Labour Studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To report on differences in Indigenous women's expectations of clinical care during treatment for a gynaecological cancer in rural and remote regions. Design. Qualitative interviews were conducted in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory in 2008 with 37 clinicians working in gynaecological cancer and 24 women with a gynaecological cancer. Three of the participants were Indigenous women living in large rural towns (others were non-Indigenous), whereas six of the 37 clinicians interviewed worked closely with Indigenous women in remote settings. Indigenous women were contacted through an Indigenous researcher. Interviews were analysed for emerging themes, then compared with each other and with the research literature for similarities and differences. Results. There is considerable variation between clinician observations of the expectations of Indigenous women in remote regions, and the views of Aboriginal women in rural settings. Conclusion. Indigenous women in rural settings have specific views about quality medical care. These include expectations of timely and culturally appropriate care, and strong ties to family and kin, but do not accord with other research findings that suggest Aboriginal women must receive care from same sex clinicians or that care is often delayed. The paper alerts practitioners to the fact that culturally appropriate care will vary from group to group, particularly between remote, rural and urban populations.

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