Rachel Canaway

Barriers to comorbidity service delivery: the complexities of dual diagnosis and the need to agree on terminology and conceptual frameworks

This paper draws from a literature review commissioned as part of a larger project evaluating comorbidity treatment service models, which was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing as part of the National Comorbidity Initiative. The co-occurrence of mental health and substance use disorders (comorbidity) is a common and complex problem. This paper outlines conceptual and practical complexities and barriers associated with comorbidity treatment service delivery, particularly around the variable nature of comorbidity, and the impacts of the separation of the mental health (MH) and alcohol and other drug (AOD) sectors with their differing institutional cultures, aetiological concepts, philosophical underpinnings, educational requirements, administrative arrangements, and screening and treatment approaches. Issues pertaining to the lack of consistent definitions and conceptual frameworks for comorbidity are discussed, particularly in relation to the reported lack of communication, collaboration, and linkages between the sectors. It is suggested that the adoption of consistent terminology and conceptual frameworks may provide a valuable step towards consistency in service provision and research and could lead to improved capacity to address the many issues relating to comorbidity service provision and treatment efficacy.

Quality of life, perceptions of health and IIIness, and complementary therapy use among people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVES To explore perceptions of health and illness, and the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), among people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD), and relate these to quality of life. DESIGN A self-administered survey was delivered by mail and internet. The questionnaire was designed from data generated from qualitative research and other sources, to collect information on health-status, CAM use, and health and illness perceptions. Quality of life was compared among participants using Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL-4D). SUBJECTS Adults with type 2 diabetes and/or CVD residing in Victoria, Australia, whether or not they used CAM therapies as well as conventional medical treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES Comparisons were made of AQoL-4D utility scores, demographic, health and wellbeing status, care-seeking and health management behaviors, and behavioral and illness perception variables. A range of descriptive statistical and predictive modeling techniques were used to assess significant associations (p<0.01) between CAM-user and non-user populations. RESULTS From a sample of 2766 people, 45.1% had used CAM in the past 12 months and the remainder had never used CAM; ages ranged from 20-96 years. CAM-users tended to report lower (worse) quality of life measures than non-users, and a greater number of chronic conditions in addition to diabetes and CVD. Despite this, CAM-users reported their illness perception and behavioral change more positively than non-users. There was little difference between CAM and non-users in use of prescription medications despite CAM-users greater disease burden. CONCLUSION Higher CAM use and low quality of life appear to reflect comorbidity and poor general health. Greater evidence is needed of how CAM use might support chronic illness prevention and complement chronic disease management, with important policy implications concerning the integration of CAM therapies with mainstream health services.

Taking control: Complementary and alternative medicine in diabetes and cardiovascular disease management.

The chronicity of chronic disease, and its associated uncertainties and fluctuations in health status, pain and/or discomfort, often leaves those so diagnosed feeling that they have lost control. Treatment can exacerbate this sense of loss of control, as people surrender to the expertise of their biomedical providers and interventions. In principle, self-management aims to return control to the individual, but its promotion is as much motivated by cost-containment as patient autonomy, and is advocated in an environment largely shaped by policy makers and biomedical providers. In this article, we examine how Australians with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease supplement medical with complementary and alternative medical (CAM) care. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 69 participants collected in 2009–2010, we illustrate how people rely on medical providers and pharmaceuticals to manage their diabetes, but concurrently consulted with CAM practitioners and used non-biomedical therapies to enhance well-being. In explaining this, participants framed CAM use in the context of reclaiming relative personal and bodily control.

Integration of complementary and alternative medicine information and advice in chronic disease management guidelines.

The growing evidence on the benefits and risks of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its high rate of use (69% of Australians) - particularly for chronic or recurrent conditions - means increasing attention on CAM. However, few people disclose CAM use to their GP, and health professionals tend to inadequately discuss CAM-related issues with their patients, partly due to insufficient knowledge. As clinical and non-clinical chronic condition management guidelines are a means to educate primary health care practitioners, we undertook a content analysis of guidelines relevant to two common chronic conditions - cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) - to assess their provision of CAM-related information. Ten current Australian guidelines were reviewed, revealing scant CAM content. When available, the CAM-relevant information was brief, in some cases unclear, inconclusive and lacking in direction to the GP or health care provider. Although we focus on CVD and T2DM, we argue the value of all chronic condition management guidelines integrating relevant evidence-informed information and advice on CAM risks, benefits and referrals, to increase GP awareness and knowledge of appropriate CAM therapies, and potentially to facilitate doctor-client discussion about CAM.

Interface, interaction and integration: how people with chronic disease in Australia manage CAM and conventional medical services

To understand the extent to which conventional and complementary health care are integrated for CAM users with chronic conditions.

Perceived barriers to effective implementation of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australia: a qualitative study

BackgroundPublic reporting of government funded (public) hospital performance data was mandated in Australia in 2011. Studies suggest some benefit associated with such public reporting, but also considerable scope to improve reporting systems.MethodsIn 2015, a purposive sample of 41 expert informants were interviewed, representing consumer, provider and purchasers perspectives across Australia’s public and private health sectors, to ascertain expert opinion on the utility and impact of public reporting of health service performance. Qualitative data was thematically analysed with a focus on reporting perceived strengths and barriers to public reporting of hospital performance data (PR).ResultsMany more weaknesses and barriers to PR were identified than strengths. Barriers were: conceptual (unclear objective, audience and reporting framework); systems-level (including lack of consumer choice, lack of consumer and clinician involvement, jurisdictional barriers, lack of mandate for private sector reporting); technical and resource related (including data complexity, lack of data relevance consistency, rigour); and socio-cultural (including provider resistance to public reporting, poor consumer health literacy, lack of consumer empowerment).ConclusionsPerceptions of the Australian experience of PR highlight important issues in its implementation that can provide lessons for Australia and elsewhere. A considerable weakness of PR in Australia is that the public are often not considered its major audience, resulting in information ineffectually framed to meet the objective of PR informing consumer decision-making about treatment options. Greater alignment is needed between the primary objective of PR, its audience and audience needs; more than one system of PR might be necessary to meet different audience needs and objectives. Further research is required to assess objectively the potency of the barriers to PR suggested by our panel of informants.

A Culture of Dissent: Australian Naturopaths’ Perspectives on Practitioner Regulation

Despite the recommendations in 2006 that naturopaths and Western herbal medicine practitioners be more closely regulated, there have been no moves toward state-mandated (statutory) registration or licensure of naturopaths in any Australian state or territory. Debate within the naturopathic profession on the appropriateness of statutory practitioner regulation has historically contributed to dissent and the creation of organizational factions. In turn, the opposing factions and resulting disunity are disincentives for government endorsement of statutory registration. This article provides an overview of the naturopathic profession in Australia and the regulatory quest, highlighting how professional marginalization and the pursuit of state protection have fueled the push for statutory registration. Considering the extent of public support for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practices, the unification of the dissenting factions within the naturopathic profession could create a powerful group, one in which current self-regulatory mechanisms might be more effective, so negating some of the perceived needs for statutory regulation. However, with the increasing use of CAM and most health professions regulated via registration Acts, there are significant arguments to support statutory registration for naturopaths in a manner similar to other health care professionals.

Room for improvement: complementary therapy users and the Australian health system

People with chronic conditions who are often in contact with the health‐care system are well placed to reflect on how services meet their needs. Some research characterizes people who use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) as a distinct group who opt out of the mainstream health system. However, many CAM users are people with chronic or terminal health conditions who concurrently use mainstream health‐care services. The difference in perspectives between people with chronic conditions who do or do not use CAM has received little attention by researchers.

Serious Decisions: Chronic Conditions and Choice of Provider

People with chronic health conditions combine conventional medical care with different complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies for varying reasons. The data on which we drew to elucidate this derive from a large mixed-methods study utilizing participant observation, in-depth interviews with 69 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD), and interviews with 20 health care providers. Although integrative practices are increasingly common, people make clear choices about and trade-offs between conventional medical care and CAM, often using CAM and prescribed pharmaceuticals in tandem for different conditions and distinct purposes and outcomes. As we illustrate, some people perceived type 2 diabetes and CVD as “too serious” for CAM treatment, but concurrently, many turned to CAM providers in appreciation of the serious attention these providers paid to their health-related concerns.

The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours

BackgroundPublic performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data aims to improve quality of care in hospitals and to inform consumer choice. In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) are gatekeepers to secondary care with patients requiring their referral for non-emergency access. Despite their intermediary role, GPs have been generally overlooked as potential users of PPR of hospital data, with the majority of the PPR research focussing on consumers, surgeons and hospitals.MethodsWe examined the use of PPR of hospital data by GPs when referring patients to hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 GPs, recruited via the Victorian Primary Care Practice-Based Research Network and GP teaching practices in Victoria, Australia. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.ResultsWe found that the majority of GPs did not use PPR when referring patients to hospitals. Instead, they relied mostly on informal sources of information such as their own or patients’ previous experiences. Barriers that prevented GPs’ use of PPR in their decision making included: lack of awareness and accessibility; perceived lack of data credibility; restrictive geographical catchments for certain hospitals; limited choices of public hospitals in regional and rural areas; and no mandatory PPR for private hospitals.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that lack of PPR awareness prevented GPs from using it in their referral practice. As gatekeepers to secondary care, GPs are in a position to guide patients in their treatment decisions and referrals using available PPR data. We suggest that there needs to be greater involvement by GPs in the development of hospital performance and quality indicators in Australia if GPs are to make greater use of them. The indicators require further development before GPs perceive them as valid, credible, and of use for informing their referral practices.