Wisam Kamil, Estie Kruger, Gillian Jean, Marc Tennant
{"title":"Distribution of Australian dental practices in relation to residential aged care facilities: A geographic analysis.","authors":"Wisam Kamil, Estie Kruger, Gillian Jean, Marc Tennant","doi":"10.1111/ger.12792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Limited access to oral health services contributes to poor oral health in institutionalised older adults. The objective of this study was to map and analyse the distribution of residential age-care facilities (RACFs) in relation to dental practices across Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Age-care data were sourced from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The data were categorised according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness index in each state and territory, defined by a geographic coordinate system. The structure of remoteness area data was integrated into RACF data using a geographic information system. Buffer analysis in QGIS was employed to calculate the buffer distance surrounding RACFs by identifying dental practices relative to a measuring distance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, Australia had 2718 RACFs and 7379 dental practices (both private 95.5% and public 4.5%). In all States, more than a third of metropolitan RACFs were within accessible reach of a private practice (ranging from 37% of RACFs in NSW to 55% in WA). However, proximity to public clinics was low, ranging from only 4% (WA) to 9% (QLD). More than one-fifth of metropolitan RACFs in NSW, QLD, WA and ACT (ranging from 20% to 24%) were not within accessible proximity of either a public or private dental clinic/practice. While more than 70% of RACFs in regional and remote Australia are reasonably close to dental practices, areas with inadequate access exist, with the highest percentage recorded in WA (6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ensuring an equitable distribution of dental practices relative to RACFs is crucial in bridging the service access gap in underserved areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":12583,"journal":{"name":"Gerodontology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ger.12792","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Limited access to oral health services contributes to poor oral health in institutionalised older adults. The objective of this study was to map and analyse the distribution of residential age-care facilities (RACFs) in relation to dental practices across Australia.
Methods: Age-care data were sourced from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The data were categorised according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness index in each state and territory, defined by a geographic coordinate system. The structure of remoteness area data was integrated into RACF data using a geographic information system. Buffer analysis in QGIS was employed to calculate the buffer distance surrounding RACFs by identifying dental practices relative to a measuring distance.
Results: In total, Australia had 2718 RACFs and 7379 dental practices (both private 95.5% and public 4.5%). In all States, more than a third of metropolitan RACFs were within accessible reach of a private practice (ranging from 37% of RACFs in NSW to 55% in WA). However, proximity to public clinics was low, ranging from only 4% (WA) to 9% (QLD). More than one-fifth of metropolitan RACFs in NSW, QLD, WA and ACT (ranging from 20% to 24%) were not within accessible proximity of either a public or private dental clinic/practice. While more than 70% of RACFs in regional and remote Australia are reasonably close to dental practices, areas with inadequate access exist, with the highest percentage recorded in WA (6%).
Conclusion: Ensuring an equitable distribution of dental practices relative to RACFs is crucial in bridging the service access gap in underserved areas.
目的:获得口腔保健服务的机会有限是导致机构养老的老年人口腔健康状况不佳的原因之一。本研究旨在绘制并分析澳大利亚各地老年护理机构(RACF)与牙科诊所的分布关系:方法:老年护理数据来源于澳大利亚健康与福利研究所(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare)。数据根据澳大利亚统计局在各州和地区的偏远指数进行分类,并通过地理坐标系统进行定义。利用地理信息系统将偏远地区数据的结构整合到 RACF 数据中。利用QGIS中的缓冲区分析法,通过识别牙科诊所与测量距离的相对值,计算出RACF周围的缓冲距离:结果:澳大利亚共有 2718 个 RACF 和 7379 个牙科诊所(其中私立诊所占 95.5%,公立诊所占 4.5%)。在所有各州中,超过三分之一的大都市区域牙科诊所与私人诊所近在咫尺(从新南威尔士州37%的区域牙科诊所到西澳大利亚州55%的区域牙科诊所不等)。然而,与公立诊所的距离却很近,从 4%(西澳大利亚州)到 9%(昆士兰州)不等。在新南威尔士州、昆士兰州、西澳大利亚州和首都地区,超过五分之一的大都市地区牙科诊所和诊所(从20%到24%不等)附近没有公立或私立牙科诊所/诊所。虽然澳大利亚地区和偏远地区70%以上的区域牙科诊所与牙科诊所距离较近,但仍有一些地区的牙科诊所与牙科诊所距离不足,其中西澳大利亚州的比例最高(6%):结论:确保牙科诊所与区域牙科诊所的公平分布,对于缩小服务不足地区的服务差距至关重要。
期刊介绍:
The ultimate aim of Gerodontology is to improve the quality of life and oral health of older people. The boundaries of most conventional dental specialties must be repeatedly crossed to provide optimal dental care for older people. In addition, management of other health problems impacts on dental care and clinicians need knowledge in these numerous overlapping areas. Bringing together these diverse topics within one journal serves clinicians who are seeking to read and to publish papers across a broad spectrum of specialties. This journal provides the juxtaposition of papers from traditional specialties but which share this patient-centred interest, providing a synergy that serves progress in the subject of gerodontology.