Health services in urban growth areas
Melbourne, in Victoria, Australia is experiencing rapid population growth with the city expected to reach approximately 8 million residents by the year 2051 [
1]. Much of this population growth is occurring in low density outer suburban “urban growth areas” up to 50-100kms away from major city centres [
1‐
3] as well as in infill areas across inner and middle suburbs of Melbourne [
1]. As urban growth areas develop, they need infrastructure and services to meet the increasing demand of the growing population [
4] and ensure equitable access to services [
5]. Plan Melbourne, has called for a 20 min city, which is where essential services including primary health care services can be accessed within a 20 min journey [
1]. Currently access to some essential primary health care services falls below this policy imperative (as outlined in this research), particularly for Melbourne’s outer urban growth areas.
Primary health care services, such as general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists, serve the majority of health care needs for consumers across Melbourne [
5]. However, evidence suggests that a higher density of these services exists within inner and middle suburbs of Melbourne [
6], compared with outer suburbs and urban growth areas. Whilst, there is evidence of considerable inequities of access to health services in rural compared with city areas [
3,
7], there is little published research about access to services in urban growth areas compared with established areas of cities. For example, access to health care services is dependent on adequate transport infrastructure to ensure those residing in outer urban growth areas are not disadvantaged.
This potential inequity of access to health services is of concern as a higher prevalence of vulnerable groups such as indigenous, young, elderly and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations, are located in Melbourne’s outer urban growth areas [
2,
8,
9]. Therefore, those in most need may have poorer access to primary health care services. As such increasing access to primary health care services can aid in reducing inequities by providing services where they required most [
10]. Importantly, better access to primary health care services has other benefits such as reducing admission rates for preventable causes of hospitalisation [
11].
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
This study focused on health services required for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). T2DM represents over 85% of all diabetes cases in Australia [
12]. Between 2011 and 2012 T2DM affected approximately 1.7 million Australians and almost 185,000 Victorians [
13]. T2DM is increasing and is projected to affect approximately 3.5 million Australians by 2033 [
13]. Additionally, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) contends that 24.7% of all diabetics live in the most disadvantaged areas across Australia [
14]. The north and west region of Melbourne, a known urban growth area, not only has the highest prevalence of all types of diabetes compared with any other regions in metropolitan capitals across Australia [
15], it is also comprised of vulnerable populations such as increasing numbers of elderly people [
16], highlighting the need to deliver appropriate health care to those most at risk.
T2DM is a complex and useful condition to use to highlight issues of access to health services. A person who presents with T2DM is required to access a range of primary and secondary health care services on a regular basis. These health services include GPs, diabetes educators, dieticians, endocrinologists, podiatrists, pharmacists, optometrists or ophthalmologists, and psychological services [
17]. This provides an indication as to the number of health services required to manage a complex chronic condition.
Spatial accessibility to primary and secondary health care services
Penchansky and Thomas [
19] denote five domains of health care access: availability, such as the number and type of health services [
18,
19]; accommodation, encompassing aspects such as opening hours; affordability, which includes cost of health services to individuals and governments; acceptability, such as the cultural appropriateness of heath care facilities; and accessibility, including the relationship between the physical location of health services to individuals and travel time [
19]. Spatial accessibility to health services is a domain of accessibility, focusing on geographical elements of how people access services in relation to their daily activities [
20] and is a focus of this study.
Neutens [
21] contends that policy makers and governments are becoming more perceptive to providing adequate, equitable and accessible health care and that decreasing spatial barriers, such as minimising travel time and distance, can increase health care utilisation. Cromely and McLafferty [
20] argue that access is a function of distance decay, such that, the further the distance of a health care facility from someone’s primary place of access (usually their home), the less utilisation of that facility for the individual. This is of particular relevance to urban growth areas, as people are moving into communities where health facilities and public transport infrastructure are still being established. As a consequence, residents may have to travel outside their neighbourhood to access required health services [
2]. This finding is supported by Hawthorne and Kwan [
22]; they measured access using geographical distance and quality of care and found those living in suburban areas in Ohio, United States, had reduced access to health care compared with those who lived inner-city.
The present study focuses on spatial access to health services, as it is a sensitive marker of health care access equity [
20] and is pertinent when examining access to health care infrastructure in urban growth areas. Primary and secondary health services across inner, middle, outer established, outer urban growth and outer fringe areas of Melbourne were chosen for investigation. Primary health care services are, for the most part, the initial point of contact to the health care system [
5] and accordingly it was hypothesised that there would be reasonable access to primary providers. Primary health care services generally do not require a referral to a specialist and include services such as GPs, pharmacists, physiotherapists and dieticians [
23]. As T2DM requires management from a range of health care providers, secondary health care services were also included to ascertain equity of health services in order to manage this complex and chronic condition [
5]. Secondary health services often include specialist services, such as endocrinologists and diabetic educators, and therefore were likely not as abundant as primary health services [
23].
Apart from spatial access, this study considered transport access to diabetic health services. It has been argued that decreasing patients’ travel time and having a range of transport options available to access health services are essential for increased health service equity [
24,
25]. The mode of travel to access health services also requires attention as few studies consider health services access via public transport [
26], with the majority defining ‘access’ through private transport modes [
3,
26,
27]. One study conducted in East Anglia, England, by Lovett et al. [
26] showed that for their sample population, a majority (67%) lived within a 5 min car trip to their nearest GP. They measured public transport access in terms of frequency of services, with 82% of the study population having access to at least four return bus trips per day to GPs. However, their study also found that those who had limited access to public transport, defined as having one or more return day time bus service, were more likely to live further away from town centres, and had to rely on private transport to access their GP [
26].
As Martin et al. [
28] purport, even in cities in the most developed countries not everyone has access to private transport. Moreover individuals who rely on public transport to access health services are often more disadvantaged (e.g. those who are older, younger, disabled, CALD, or have a lower socioeconomic status) [
2,
5,
8]. Transport disadvantage has implications for access to health services particularly for residents in Melbourne’s urban growth areas and the mode of transport options they have available when accessing diabetic health services. In general, however, research into the mode of transport when accessing primary and secondary health services (including diabetic), specifically in growth areas, is severely lacking [
2].
Significance of the research
Global urbanisation is rapidly increasing with 1 billion more people living in urban areas in 2014 compared with 2000 [
29]. As rapid urbanisation and population growth continues there is growing awareness of the impact the built environment has on health [
30]. There is a link between the built environment and modern ‘epidemics’ of non-communicable diseases, such as T2DM, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers [
31,
32]. It has been argued that such ‘epidemics’ are related to factors such as physical inactivity and obesity, which are perpetuated by increasingly low density outer suburban urban environments, where there is poor access to public transport and services, and inversely a higher reliance in car usage [
31,
32].
Melbourne, Australia, is facing a number of development pressures including adapting to an increased and ageing population, being economically competitive and increasing social inequality [
33]. For some, labour and housing markets have created opportunity, however it has further marginalised those more disadvantaged residents, particularly for this living in areas where there is insufficient access to public transport, employment, education and other essential services [
33].
Low density neighbourhoods with poor access to transport, services and public open space [
34], − attributes which characterise urban growth areas – have been associated with lower levels of physical activity and decreased access to healthy foods. These are pre-cursors to chronic diseases such as T2DM and cardiovascular disease [
34]. Thus, it is increasingly recognised that Australian cities will face considerable pressure in the years ahead [
4,
35]. If new urban growth areas are not adequately planned, one concern is that disadvantage and poor health will increase for those living in these new communities [
2,
36]. Given that Melbourne is in a population growth period, strategic development and plans for urban growth corridors are being made for the next 30 to 40 years [
37]. Planning for health care services, transport, road networks and housing now, will impact access to the social determinants of health for communities in many years to come.
Whilst studies have identified differences in health services accessibility between urban and rural settings [
3,
38], few studies have considered differences in access to health services within a metropolitan area. Therefore this research contributes knowledge to the field through the examination of intra-city variations and health services access for a case study disease.
Additionally, few studies have considered access to both primary and secondary health care providers. However through the examination of diabetic health services, this study was able to do both. This is also true for transport, where few studies have considered access to health services for both private and public transport; however given the importance public transport can have for disadvantaged populations, particular for health services access, it was included in this study.