Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia

Vincent Lawrence Versace, Neil T. Coffee, Julie Franzon, Dorothy Turner, Jarrod Lange, Danielle Taylor, Robyn Clark

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). Research design and methods: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. Results: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ2 = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ2 = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer’s V = 0.461, p<0.001). Conclusions: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA + model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations–i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.

Original languageEnglish
Article number0219959
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalPLoS One
Volume14
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Jul 2019

Fingerprint

Aftercare
Chi-Square Distribution
urban areas
Research Design
Visualization
Population
methodology

Cite this

Versace, V. L., Coffee, N. T., Franzon, J., Turner, D., Lange, J., Taylor, D., & Clark, R. (2019). Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia. PLoS One, 14(7), 1-13. [0219959]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219959
Versace, Vincent Lawrence ; Coffee, Neil T. ; Franzon, Julie ; Turner, Dorothy ; Lange, Jarrod ; Taylor, Danielle ; Clark, Robyn. / Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia. In: PLoS One. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 7. pp. 1-13.
@article{4a6b1da6690c4c2ea8f0d7f1bc21cb49,
title = "Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia",
abstract = "Objective: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). Research design and methods: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. Results: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14{\%} of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5{\%} of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98{\%} of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ2 = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ2 = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer’s V = 0.461, p<0.001). Conclusions: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA + model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations–i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.",
author = "Versace, {Vincent Lawrence} and Coffee, {Neil T.} and Julie Franzon and Dorothy Turner and Jarrod Lange and Danielle Taylor and Robyn Clark",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0219959",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "1--13",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "7",

}

Versace, VL, Coffee, NT, Franzon, J, Turner, D, Lange, J, Taylor, D & Clark, R 2019, 'Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia', PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 7, 0219959, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219959

Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia. / Versace, Vincent Lawrence; Coffee, Neil T.; Franzon, Julie; Turner, Dorothy; Lange, Jarrod; Taylor, Danielle; Clark, Robyn.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 14, No. 7, 0219959, 25.07.2019, p. 1-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of general and cardiac care-specific indices of spatial access in Australia

AU - Versace, Vincent Lawrence

AU - Coffee, Neil T.

AU - Franzon, Julie

AU - Turner, Dorothy

AU - Lange, Jarrod

AU - Taylor, Danielle

AU - Clark, Robyn

PY - 2019/7/25

Y1 - 2019/7/25

N2 - Objective: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). Research design and methods: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. Results: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ2 = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ2 = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer’s V = 0.461, p<0.001). Conclusions: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA + model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations–i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.

AB - Objective: To identity differences between a general access index (Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia; ARIA+) and a specific acute and aftercare cardiac services access index (Cardiac ARIA). Research design and methods: Exploratory descriptive design. ARIA+ (2011) and Cardiac ARIA (2010) were compared using cross-tabulations (chi-square test for independence) and map visualisations. All Australian locations with ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA values were included in the analysis (n = 20,223). The unit of analysis was Australian locations. Results: Of the 20,223 locations, 2757 (14% of total) had the highest level of acute cardiac access coupled with the highest level of general access. There were 1029 locations with the poorest access (5% of total). Approximately two thirds of locations in Australia were classed as having the highest level of cardiac aftercare. Locations in Major Cities, Inner Regional Australia, and Outer Regional Australia accounted for approximately 98% of this category. There were significant associations between ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA acute (χ2 = 25250.73, df = 28, p<0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.559, p<0.001) and Cardiac ARIA aftercare (χ2 = 17204.38, df = 16, Cramer’s V = 0.461, p<0.001). Conclusions: Although there were significant associations between the indices, ARIA+ and Cardiac ARIA are not interchangeable. Systematic differences were apparent which can be attributed largely to the underlying specificity of the Cardiac ARIA (a time critical index that uses distance to the service of interest) compared to general accessibility quantified by the ARIA + model (an index that uses distance to population centre). It is where the differences are located geographically that have a tangible impact upon the communities in these locations–i.e. peri-urban areas of the major capital cities, and around the more remote regional centres. There is a strong case for specific access models to be developed and updated to assist with efficient deployment of resources and targeted service provision. The reasoning behind the differences highlighted will be generalisable to any comparison between general and service-specific access models.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069829078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/comparison-general-cardiac-carespecific-indices-spatial-access-australia

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0219959

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0219959

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 7

M1 - 0219959

ER -