The effectiveness of ethno-specific and mainstream health services: an evidence gap map.
CALD
Ethnic
Ethno-specific
Migrant
Multicultural
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jul 2022
08 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
01
02
2022
accepted:
22
06
2022
entrez:
7
7
2022
pubmed:
8
7
2022
medline:
12
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background face significant barriers in accessing effective health services in multicultural countries such as the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. To address these barriers, government and nongovernment organisations globally have taken the approach of creating ethno-specific services, which cater to the specific needs of CALD clients. These services are often complementary to mainstream services, which cater to the general population including CALD communities. This systematic review uses the Evidence Gap Map (EGM) approach to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of ethno-specific and mainstream services in the Australian context. We reviewed Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases for articles published from 1996 to 2021 that assessed the impact of health services for Australian CALD communities. Two independent reviewers extracted and coded all the documents, and discussed discrepancies until reaching a 100% agreement. The main inclusion criteria were: 1) time (published after 1996); 2) geography (data collected in Australia); 3) document type (presents results of empirical research in a peer-reviewed outlet); 4) scope (assesses the effectiveness of a health service on CALD communities). We identified 97 articles relevant for review. Ninety-six percent of ethno-specific services (i.e. specifically targeting CALD groups) were effective in achieving their aims across various outcomes. Eighteen percent of mainstream services (i.e. targeting the general population) were effective for CALD communities. When disaggregating our sample by outcomes (i.e. access, satisfaction with the service, health and literacy), we found that 50 % of studies looking at mainstream services' impact on CALD communities found that they were effective in achieving health outcomes. The use of sub-optimal methodologies that increase the risk of biased findings is widespread in the research field that we mapped. Our findings provide partial support to the claims of advocacy stakeholders that mainstream services have limitations in the provision of effective health services for CALD communities. Although focusing on the Australian case study, this review highlights an under-researched policy area, proposes a viable methodology to conduct further research on this topic, and points to the need to disaggregate the data by outcome (i.e. access, satisfaction with the service, health and literacy) when assessing the comparative effectiveness of ethno-specific and mainstream services for multicultural communities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
People of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background face significant barriers in accessing effective health services in multicultural countries such as the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia. To address these barriers, government and nongovernment organisations globally have taken the approach of creating ethno-specific services, which cater to the specific needs of CALD clients. These services are often complementary to mainstream services, which cater to the general population including CALD communities.
METHODS
METHODS
This systematic review uses the Evidence Gap Map (EGM) approach to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of ethno-specific and mainstream services in the Australian context. We reviewed Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases for articles published from 1996 to 2021 that assessed the impact of health services for Australian CALD communities. Two independent reviewers extracted and coded all the documents, and discussed discrepancies until reaching a 100% agreement. The main inclusion criteria were: 1) time (published after 1996); 2) geography (data collected in Australia); 3) document type (presents results of empirical research in a peer-reviewed outlet); 4) scope (assesses the effectiveness of a health service on CALD communities). We identified 97 articles relevant for review.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ninety-six percent of ethno-specific services (i.e. specifically targeting CALD groups) were effective in achieving their aims across various outcomes. Eighteen percent of mainstream services (i.e. targeting the general population) were effective for CALD communities. When disaggregating our sample by outcomes (i.e. access, satisfaction with the service, health and literacy), we found that 50 % of studies looking at mainstream services' impact on CALD communities found that they were effective in achieving health outcomes. The use of sub-optimal methodologies that increase the risk of biased findings is widespread in the research field that we mapped.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings provide partial support to the claims of advocacy stakeholders that mainstream services have limitations in the provision of effective health services for CALD communities. Although focusing on the Australian case study, this review highlights an under-researched policy area, proposes a viable methodology to conduct further research on this topic, and points to the need to disaggregate the data by outcome (i.e. access, satisfaction with the service, health and literacy) when assessing the comparative effectiveness of ethno-specific and mainstream services for multicultural communities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35799175
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08238-1
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08238-1
pmc: PMC9263048
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
879Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:49-58
pubmed: 29247700
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jul;69(2):246-57
pubmed: 19539414
Australas J Ageing. 2009 Sep;28(3):144-8
pubmed: 19845655
Int Psychogeriatr. 2012 May;24(5):733-41
pubmed: 22137090
Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 10;5:28
pubmed: 26864942
Australas J Ageing. 2009 Jun;28(2):58-63
pubmed: 19566798
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 May 11;13(5):
pubmed: 27187423
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 16;18(2):
pubmed: 33467144
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 26;8(4):e62777
pubmed: 23638145
Transcult Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;52(3):331-52
pubmed: 25468826
Health Serv Res. 2019 Feb;54 Suppl 1:263-274
pubmed: 30613960
Vaccine. 2017 Sep 12;35(38):5148-5155
pubmed: 28802753
Women Birth. 2020 May;33(3):e245-e255
pubmed: 31182352
Aust Occup Ther J. 2021 Feb;68(1):54-64
pubmed: 32986879
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Oct;262:113246
pubmed: 32768775
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Oct 06;14:348
pubmed: 25284336
Sex Health. 2013 Mar;10(1):47-56
pubmed: 23158432
FASEB J. 2008 Feb;22(2):338-42
pubmed: 17884971