Distribution and Accessibility of Residential Aged Care Facilities Concerning Socioeconomic Indicators and Geographic Remoteness in Australia

Bibliographic Data

ID6426948
AuthorsAmal Musleh Alrewaithi (0009-0009-0915-451X), Estie Kruger (0000-0002-4883-6793), Marc Tennant (0000-0002-2553-9884)
EditorsMohammad Niroumand Sarvandani (0000-0001-9790-3908)
Year2025
Volume2025
Issue1
Publication date2025-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth & Social Care in the Community (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0966-0410 • E-ISSN: 1365-2524
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1155/hsc/7696896
OpenAlexW4406991656
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited18

Objective: This study examined the distribution of residential aged care facilities in relation to the aged population and socioeconomic profile at the smallest geographical unit in Australia’s metropolitan areas, regional centers, and large rural towns. Methods: An observational study was designed using the most recent open‐source data from the Australian government. The aged population data and RACF locations were aggregated by SA1, remoteness, and socioeconomic profile, which were defined using the modified Monash model (MMM) and the index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage (IRSD). Remoteness was categorized into metropolitan areas, regional centers, and large rural towns, while socioeconomic factors were analyzed based on IRSD 10 deciles. The study utilized a Quantum Geographic Information System (QGIS) to perform the analysis and mapping of RACF distribution and accessibility. All collected data files were overlaid and linked using the join function in QGIS for comprehensive analysis at the Statistical area level 1 (SA1). Centroids were calculated for each SA1 to represent the geographical center of the area. The buffer function was performed to determine the proportion of the aged population residing within the specified distance thresholds of 2.5 km, 5 km, and over a 5 km radius from these facilities. Results: Geographic disparities: The findings indicate shortages of RACF places’ availability, with only 5% of the older population living in metropolitan and large rural towns having access to such places. The number drops to 4% for those living in regional centers. The majority of older metropolitan residents reside within a 5 km radius of RACFs, compared to large rural areas (14%) and regional centers (23%), where the elders reside over the study distance threshold. The shortage of available places and the travel distances to these services may lead older adults who cannot live independently to seek alternative aged care services or remain at home. This might result in inadequate health services tailored to their specific needs which may contribute to poor health outcomes, increased in emergency room presentations, and unplanned hospital admissions. Socioeconomic Disparities: The distribution of RACFs varied significantly across different socioeconomic profiles in favor of people with a lower socioeconomic background across the study, measured using the IRSD. Area. Conclusion: Urgent policy interventions are needed to expand RACFs’ capacity and to establish new facilities in areas with the greatest need. The aged health system needs increased funding, improved workforce conditions, and equitable resource allocation to create a sustainable aged care system with a high‐end quality of care

Distribution (mathematics · Environmental health · Geography · Location · Population · Socioeconomic status · Socioeconomics · Sociology · Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes · Health disparities and outcomes · Medicine · Migration, Aging, and Tourism Studies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access