4.1 Article

Hard to reach communities or hard to access services? Migrant mothers' experiences of dental services

期刊

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 201-207

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12171

关键词

Dental service utilization; migrant oral health; oral health inequalities; qualitative methods

资金

  1. Telstra Foundation Community Development Fund
  2. NHMRC postgraduate scholarship
  3. Jack Brockhoff Foundation
  4. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute - Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Good oral health is an important component of overall health which can help migrants settle in a new country. Infant oral health is intimately associated with maternal oral health knowledge and behaviours and therefore, encounters with dental services. This study aimed to explore the experiences of dental service use from the perspective of migrant mothers living in Melbourne, Australia. Methods: A participatory research approach utilizing qualitative methods was adopted. Women from Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan participated. Semi-structured focus groups and interviews were conducted and thematic analysis of the data was completed. Results: Focus groups (n = 11) and interviews (n = 7) were conducted with 115 women. Despite an understanding that visiting the dentist was important for promoting oral health, the first dental contact for both the women and their children was typically for emergency care. Accessibility, cost and waiting lists were identified as significant barriers to attendance. Problematic interpreter encounters often led to negative experiences which were compounded by a perception that public services provided poorer quality of care. Conclusions: Despite evidence of poorer oral health, migrant women face significant barriers in accessing mainstream dental services. Reorientation of such services, to address the accessibility and experience for migrant communities may help reduce oral health inequalities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据