Primary health care is essential for equitable, cost-effective and sustainable health care. It is the cornerstone to achieving universal health coverage against a backdrop of rising health expenditure and aging populations. Implementing strong primary health care requires grassroots understanding of health system performance. Comparing successes and barriers between countries may help identify mutual challenges and possible solutions. This paper compares and analyses primary health care policy in Australia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. Data were collected at the World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians (WONCA) Asia-Pacific regional conference in November 2017 using a predetermined framework. The six countries varied in maturity of their primary health care systems, including the extent to which family doctors contribute to care delivery. Challenges included an insufficient trained and competent workforce, particularly in rural and remote communities, and deficits in coordination within primary health care, as well as between primary and secondary care. Asia-Pacific regional policy needs to: (1) focus on better collaboration between public and private sectors; (2) take a structured approach to information sharing by bridging gaps in technology, health literacy and interprofessional working; (3) build systems that can evaluate and improve quality of care; and (4) promote community-based, high-quality training programs.
Background Abortion care is typically undertaken by doctors; however, alternate models, including nurse-led care, are increasingly seen as viable alternatives. However, attitudes towards the leadership of alternate models can be a barrier to change. We explored the acceptability of different models of abortion care, and whether attitudes differed by health profession for those working in sexual and reproductive health. Methods Our mixed method survey explored how doctors, nurses/midwives and those working in administrative roles in primary care in Australia felt about three models of abortion care: doctor-led, nurse-led and self-administered. ANOVAs compared favourability ratings and attitude strength across groups, and qualitative data exploring how they felt about each model was thematically analysed using Leximancer. Results Attitudes towards doctor-led and nurse-led models of care were overwhelmingly positive. However, doctors perceived doctor-led care more favourably than other professionals, and felt it provides a more holistic, safer experience, that opportunistically facilitated discussions about other sexual and reproductive health matters. Self-administered care was perceived unfavourably by ~60% of participants, and was associated with significant safety concerns. Conclusions Most health professionals working in sexual and reproductive health care perceive that nurse-led models of care are viable and acceptable, although doctors feel there are additional benefits to the current model. Self-administered abortion is overwhelmingly perceived as unsafe. Nurse-led care models could increase access to safe abortion in Australia, and are perceived favourably by those working in sexual and reproductive health care.