A model explaining refugee experiences of the Australian healthcare system: a systematic review of refugee perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Refugees have significant unmet health needs. Delivering services to refugees continues to be problematic in the Australian healthcare system. A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the literature exploring refugee perceptions of the Australian healthcare system was performed. METHODS: Titles and abstracts of 1610 articles published between 2006 and 2019 were screened, and 147 articles were read in full text. Depending on the type of study, articles were appraised using the Modified Critical Appraisal Tool (developed by authors), the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, or the JBI Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews. Using QSR NVivo 11, articles were coded into descriptive themes and synthesised into analytical themes. An explanatory model was used to synthesise these findings. Confidence in the review findings were assessed with GRADE-CERQual approach. RESULTS: The final synthesis included 35 articles consisting of one systematic review, 7 mixed methods studies, and 27 qualitative studies. Only one study was from a regional or rural area. A model incorporating aspects of engagement, access, trust, and privacy can be used to explain the experiences of refugees in using the Australian healthcare system. Refugees struggled to engage with health services due to their unfamiliarity with the health system. Information sharing is needed but this is not always delivered effectively, resulting in disempowerment and loss of autonomy. In response, refugees resorted to familiar means, such as family members and their pre-existing cultural knowledge. At times, this perpetuated their unfamiliarity with the broader health system. Access barriers were also encountered. Trust and privacy are pervasive issues that influenced access and engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Refugees face significant barriers in accessing and engaging with healthcare services and often resorted to familiar means to overcome what is unfamiliar. This has implications across all areas of service provision. Health administrators and educators need to consider improving the cultural competency of staff and students. Policymakers need to consider engaging communities and upscale the availability and accessibility of professional language and cultural supports. Research is needed on how these measures can be effectively delivered. There is limited research in remote areas and further evidence is needed in these settings.

Refugee healthcare perceptions in regional northern Australia: transition through engagement, access, trust, privacy, the old, and the new.

Current Australian Government policy aims to resettle refugees in regional Australia, but little is known about their primary and hospital healthcare experiences in these settings. By taking an interpretive approach to a narrative inquiry methodology, a qualitative study was performed to examine refugee perceptions of health care in a regional centre of northern Queensland, Australia. Purposive sampling and an interview guide were developed in partnership with the local refugee resettlement agency. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 14 refugees and involved interpreters. Transcripts were thematically organised into a story, validated by participants. Using QSR NVivo 12, all researchers analysed the transcripts. Themes were validated at a community event. Six themes were described: service issues, self-advocacy, knowledge and understanding that changes with time, interpreter issues, regional-metropolitan differentials, and the influence of the past on present behaviour. A conceptual framework involving engagement, access, trust and privacy, and the old versus the new, can be used to describe refugees' experiences. Discrimination, transport, and reliance on family and peers may be experiences that are more prominent in regional Australia. Refugees require high-quality information-sharing practices, formal support systems, and better models of service delivery for interpreting support. Clinicians need to be culturally respectful with their interactions.

The Refugee Co-Location Model may be useful in addressing refugee barriers to care. What do refugees think?

Co-location of services for refugees may be beneficial in addressing barriers to care. This model of care involves support for a specialist refugee nurse service with general practice, as well as developing partnerships with settlement support agencies and Primary Health Networks. We consider published literature on refugee perceptions of co-location, different models of care, upcoming research and priorities in the area.

The health impacts of waste incineration: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Waste incineration is increasingly used to reduce waste volume and produce electricity. Several incinerators have recently been proposed in Australia and community groups are concerned about health impacts. An overview of the evidence on health effects has been needed. METHOD: A systematic review of English language literature for waste incinerators and health using PRISMA methodology. RESULTS: A range of adverse health effects were identified, including significant associations with some neoplasia, congenital anomalies, infant deaths and miscarriage, but not for other diseases. Ingestion was the dominant exposure pathway for the public. Newer incinerator technologies may reduce exposure. DISCUSSION: Despite these findings, diverse chemicals, poor study methodologies and inconsistent reporting of incinerator technology specifications precludes firmer conclusions about safety. CONCLUSION: Older incinerator technology and infrequent maintenance schedules have been strongly linked with adverse health effects. More recent incinerators have fewer reported ill effects, perhaps because of inadequate time for adverse effects to emerge. A precautionary approach is required. Waste minimisation is essential. Implications for public health: Public health practitioners can offer clearer advice about adverse health effects from incinerators. We suggest improved research design and methods to make future studies more robust and comparable. We offer ideas for better policy and regulation.

Indigenous health program evaluation design and methods in Australia: a systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Indigenous Australians experience a disproportionately higher burden of disease compared to non-Indigenous Australians. High-quality evaluation of Indigenous health programs is required to inform health and health services improvement. We aimed to quantify methodological and other characteristics of Australian Indigenous health program evaluations published in the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature (November 2009-2014) on Indigenous health program evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 118 papers describing evaluations of 109 interventions; 72.0% were university/research institution-led. 82.2% of evaluations included a quantitative component; 49.2% utilised quantitative data only and 33.1% used both quantitative and qualitative data. The most common design was a before/after comparison (30.5%, n=36/118). 7.6% of studies (n=9/118) used an experimental design: six individual-level and three cluster-randomised controlled trials. 56.8% (67/118) reported on service delivery/process outcomes (versus health or health risk factor outcomes) only. CONCLUSIONS: Given the number of Indigenous health programs that are implemented, few evaluations overall are published in the peer-reviewed literature and, of these, few use optimal methodologies such as mixed methods and experimental design. Implications for public health: Multiple strategies are required to increase high-quality, accessible evaluation in Indigenous health, including supporting stronger research-policy-practice partnerships and capacity building for evaluation by health services and government.