Comparing Primary Health Care: Australia vs India - NUR3101

This essay presents a comparative analysis of primary health care strategies in Australia and India, highlighting the differences in their health care systems and the impact on chronic disease management. It discusses the social determinants of health, such as economic status, education, and cultural beliefs, that contribute to disparities in health outcomes. The essay also examines the role of nurses in both countries, noting the differences in their level of involvement in care planning and decision-making. Furthermore, it addresses issues of social justice and equity in health care access, particularly in India, where private health sectors offer better facilities but are unaffordable for many. The analysis extends to the cultural competence of nursing professionals and the initiatives undertaken by both governments to improve primary health care, ultimately emphasizing the need for comprehensive, patient-centered care that addresses the unique needs of diverse populations. The essay concludes by noting how Australian nurses are given opportunities to advocate for their patients, something not afforded to nurses in India.

Running head: COMPARATIVE STUDY
Comparative study
Name of the student:
Name of the university
Author note:

COMPARATIVE STUDY 1
Introduction:
Over the years, the prevalence of chronic disease has become a major concern for people
all across the world. Primary health care services have been implemented with the basic aim of
proving care and support to patients along with the establishment of a therapeutic relationship
(Gabe, Harley & Calnan, 2015). However, there are disparities in the health care services
observed across the world that increases the mortality rate due to the chronic disease (Wang et
al., 2016). The major purpose of the paper is to provide a comparative study of the various health
care strategies followed in Australia and India to gain the understanding the difference in the
health care system that contributed to the burden of chronic disease. Various social determinants
of health are followed with the aim of a better future and a healthy environment. Therefore, this
paper will illustrate differences in primary health care between two nations and the impact of
nurses in them in the following paragraphs.
Discussion:
Due to increased prevalence of severity of the chronic disease, a considerate number of
individuals are suffering from the health disability amongst the around the globe. Australia and
India, two major countries are not an exception of it. A study by Diwan et al. (2016), suggested
that in Australia, one in two individuals are suffering from chronic disorders such as arthritis,
back pain, and cardiovascular disease that affected the quality of life. Another study by
Thawesaengskulthai, Wongrukmit, and Dahlgaard (2015), suggested that due to the prevalence
of the chronic disorder the date rates are five times higher than any other countries. Although the
metropolitan part of Australia has become advanced in terms of the health care system, the
aboriginal populations are still deprived of the health care facilities due to social demographic

2
COMPARATIVE STUDY
status and lack of adequate educations and distinct cultural beliefs. On the other hand,
considering the third world country such as India, the prevalence of chronic disease is higher
compared to Australia. A study suggested that chronic disease such as obesity, back pain, and
cardiovascular disease affected approximately 45 % of the individual. Another study highlighted
that approximately 1600 out of 100000 individuals are suffering from asthma in India. Philip et
al. (2018) suggested that approximately 35% of the hospital stays in India are observed because
of the non-communicable chronic disease that not affected the physical condition but also
affected the psychological condition of individuals. Social, determinates play a crucial role in
causing these differences. Soet al. (2016), suggested that in Australia, the economic status and
financial performance is greater compared to India which contributed to better health care
facilities for the nurses. The poverty rate of India is 8 times higher compared to Australia,
whereas the mainly aboriginal individual is suffering from the health care disparities (Philip et al.
2018). Besides, the unemployment in rate is higher in India where because of the strong
educational system and prevalence of the trending business, the unemployment rate is lower in
Australia. Consequently, in India, 3 out 10 individuals are suffering from the major depressive
disorder and anxiety disorders (Saramma et al., 2016). Therefore, global burden of the disease is
significantly higher in India compared to Australia.
Nurses being the frontline health care professionals, contributed mostly in the enhancing
the health care process in order to achieve a positive outcome from the patient. A study identified
that there is a considerate number of differences observed in the primary hear care system, the
major one is lack of adequate power in nursing professionals (Stubbs, 2017). In Australia,
physicians incorporate in nurses in the care plan while deciding accurate interventions for the
patient in order to provide patient-centered care (Davey et al., 2015). In contrast to Australia, in

3
COMPARATIVE STUDY
India, the nurses play the very superficial role in deciding accurate treatment procedures, in the
majority of the cases they follow the instructions of the physicians, and therefore India failed to
address the accurate need of the patient that in turn affected the patient satisfaction. In India,
nurses’ courses are very limited compared to Australia where the nursing courses divided into
different sectors. Moreover, the existence of the stereotypical role such as women are meant to
perform the nursing jobs is identified in the India (Willis et al., 2016). Only very few private
health care sectors are successful in India to recruit men as a nurse to provide patient-centric care
whereas in government health care sectors only women are recruited as nurses(Davey et al.,
2015). Therefore, these stereotypical and attitude of society affected the primary health care
setting. India failed to address the social justice, only the private sectors in India are able to
provide all of the facilities and individuals with higher economic status able to afford the cost of
these facilities and people with lower economic conditions failed to receive these care services
(Patel et al., 2015). This issue highlighted the loss of social justice in India compared to Australia
where health sectors maintain the equity of care (Das et al., 2015). The prevalence of the major
depressive disorders is higher in me that due to different stigma present in the society in India,
the majority of the individuals are afraid to seek the clinical assistance. Therefore, adolescents
developed a chronic disease such as major depressive disorders at a very young age and failed to
receive clinical attention (Wakerman et al., 2016). Consequently, the lack of clinical assistance
contributed to an increase in the mortality and morbidity rate.

4
COMPARATIVE STUDY
The primary healthcare system of Australia is far more developed than the primary
healthcare system of India. The primary healthcare system in Australia is seen to be comprising
of huge number of providers as well as services across the public, private and even the non-for
profit organizations (Prinja et al., 2016). Most of the Australians are seen to get healthcare
services from the general practitioners. Nurses also act as important representative of the system
where they work as general practice nurses, nurse practitioners as well as community nurses.
Allied healthcare professionals, midwives, pharmacists, densities and aboriginal healthcare
providers also form part of the primary healthcare system. The nursing professionals working
under the system are well educated and have realized the importance of following the bio-
psychosocial model of care (Halcomb et al., 2016). They are seen to provide comprehensive care
for the patients that involve continuous as well as person-centered approach. They try to manage
the social, biological and psychological determinants of heath of all patients irrespective of their
economic status and backgrounds.
On the contrary, the primary healthcare system of India is quite different and it has not
been able to meet up the standards of care provided by nursing professionals of Australia. The
primary healthcare units that had been developed in India do not allow comprehensive care to all
inhabitants of the nation as they mainly base their care on managing the biological determinants
of health. The urban areas mainly exhibits personal clinics that are held by doctors and nursing
professionals are not employed in such systems (Anant et al., 2016). Here, the physicians are
seen to conduct their diagnosis and treatment procedures. The concept of nursing professionals
caring for people in a community based manner is entirely absent. Nursing professionals are only
seen to be important members in hospitals and secondary and tertiary care units. They are not
appointed in the urban clinics. However, few nurses are allowed to work in the government aided

5
COMPARATIVE STUDY
small units in the rural areas but their power is quite limited unlike that of the primary healthcare
nurses in Australia.
However, both the government of India as well as that of health department of Australia
had undertaken huge number of initiatives in handling the chronic disorder burdens in their
respective nations. In the Alma Ata declaration in India, India had pledged to include eight
important elements in their primary healthcare systems. The first one is the provision of medical
care, development of maternal-child health along with family planning, safe water supply and
sanitation and that of collection and reporting of vital statistics (Patel et al., 2015). The other four
include education about health, national health programs, referral services, training health
guides, workers, local dais and others. Although, such actions are mentioned in the Alma Ata
declaration in India for carrying on primary care health structures, very few initiatives had
proved to be successful. Huge number of programs had been initiated in the nation of India.
These are Integrated Disease Surveillance Project (IDSP), National Leprosy Eradication
Programme, National Aids Control Programme, National Mental Health Programme, National
Cancer Control Programme and many others like Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana ,
Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission (RGNDWM). Researches state that India
becomes successful in implementing huge number of programs but very few programs can meet
their goals or achieve success. This might be because of the nursing professionals who are
interacting with the citizens are not involved in decision making, policy development and
implementation procedures. The doctors and the nursing professionals providing care in
primary healthcare services are never included in policy making procedures as well as
developing health promotion programs (Davey et al., 2015). Therefore, the needs of the common

6
COMPARATIVE STUDY
Indians are never transferred to the higher levels and hence the programs that are developed
never meet the successful outcomes.
Three important arenas are also found to be present that distinguishes the primary
healthcare system between the two nations. These are the technical insufficiency, administrative
inanity as well as operational capacity. In India, all the three aspects are found to be quite poor
with nursing professionals working in the primary healthcare centers allocated from government
have no access or contribution in any of the three aspects. However, the private healthcare
centers appoint nurses who have good knowledge in the above mentioned three aspects but the
cost of services in private healthcare centers are quite high. Hence, equity and social justice in
healthcare is not followed at all. The private sectors have developed technical sufficiency and the
care provided is also of high quality (Das et al., 2015). However, people belonging to low
socioeconomic class of people cannot afford services from nurses of private organizations. They
can afford governmental healthcare services which are cheaper but cannot ensure quality care.
However, such social injustice and equity cannot be found in the healthcare services of the
primary healthcare organizations in the nation of Australia ensuring equal quality care to all.
On the other hand, the healthcare department of Australia is also seen to publish many
programs for health promotion. Different programs that had been established in the nation are
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-14, Bi-Cultural
Community Health Program, Community Engagement Officer, Refugee Health Program and
many others. One marked difference that had been found is that nurses in Australia are provided
opportunities for advocating on behalf of the people of the nation and communicate their issues
to the health department of the nation (Wakerman et al., 2016). As a result of this, the programs
that are developed are shown to provide positive outcomes. Even nurses of this region are given

7
COMPARATIVE STUDY
the responsibility to arrange for health promotion and education sessions where they can
educate communities on the different chronic ailments. Nurses are provided the power to
develop policies along with the policy-makers and provide their valuable inputs. Such gestures
are not provided to nurses in India resulting them to enjoy very little scope to contribute to
development of patient health.
The nursing professionals working in the primary healthcare centers of Australia are
found to be more culturally competent. The healthcare education system of the nation puts focus
on the budding nurses where they help nurses to develop cultural awareness and cultural
knowledge and overcome cultural sensitivity (Willis et al., 2016). It has been found that nursing
professionals working in primary healthcare centers in India are not culturally competent.
Evidences of nurses treating dalits (considered as untouchables) in the nation inhumanly or
denying care services had been reported in leading dailies quite frequently. Social justice and
equity is not at all followed by the healthcare professionals in the nation of India and hence
people from backward castes and classes are seen to not attend the healthcare services with the
fear of being humiliated and discriminated (Ducket et al., 2015). On the other hand, Australian
healthcare system has ensured equity and social justice while caring for the Aboriginals and the
other indigenous people in that nation ensuring dignity and autonomy.

8
COMPARATIVE STUDY
Conclusion:
Thus, it can be concluded that Due to increased prevalence of severity of the chronic
disease, a considerate number of individuals are suffering from the health disability around the
globe. In terms of the prevalence of chronic disease, the predominance of chronic disease is
higher in India compared to Australia. The social determinants such as poverty, social justice,
biases of the society are highlighted as a major contributor for an increase in the chronic disease
in India compared to Australia. The nursing role plays a crucial derides in this case. In India, the
power of nurses is very limited, they lack cultural competency, and they do not involve the
policymaking. Therefore, the disparities in health care contributed to the chronic disease.

9
COMPARATIVE STUDY
References:
Anant, P., Bergkvist, S., Chandani, T., Katyal, A., Rao, R., Reddy, S., ... & Khan, I. (2016).
Landscaping of primary healthcare in
India.https://accessh.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Primary-Care-
Landscape_ACCESS-Health-International.pdf
Das, J., Holla, A., Mohpal, A., & Muralidharan, K. (2015). Quality and accountability in
healthcare delivery: audit evidence from primary care providers in
India.https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-7334https://
openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/119218
Davey, S., Raghav, S. K., Singh, J. V., Davey, A., & Singh, N. (2015). A comparative evaluation
of public health centers with private health training centers on primary healthcare
parameters in India: a study by data envelopment analysis technique. Indian journal of
community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social
Medicine, 40(4), 252. doi: 10.4103/0970-0218.164394
Diwan, V., Gustafsson, C., Klintz, S. R., Joshi, S. C., Joshi, R., Sharma, M., ... & Lundborg, C.
S. (2016). Understanding healthcare workers self-reported practices, knowledge and
attitude about hand hygiene in a medical setting in rural India. PloS one, 11(10),
e0163347.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163347
Duckett, S., & Willcox, S. (2015). The Australian health care system (No. Ed. 5). Oxford
University Press.https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20173279780

10
COMPARATIVE STUDY
Gabe, J., Harley, K., & Calnan, M. (2015). Healthcare choice: Discourses, perceptions,
experiences and practices. Current Sociology, 63(5), 623-635.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011392115590061
Halcomb, E., Stephens, M., Bryce, J., Foley, E., & Ashley, C. (2016). Nursing competency
standards in primary health care: an integrative review. Journal of clinical nursing, 25(9-
10), 1193-1205.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jocn.13224
Mossialos, E., Wenzl, M., Osborn, R., & Sarnak, D. (2016). 2015 international profiles of health
care systems. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.
https://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2015&q=difference+in+the+healthcare+australia+and+india
Patel, V., Parikh, R., Nandraj, S., Balasubramaniam, P., Narayan, K., Paul, V. K., ... & Reddy, K.
S. (2015). Assuring health coverage for all in India. The Lancet, 386(10011), 2422-
2435.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00955-1
Philip, S., Woodward-Kron, R., Manias, E., & Noronha, M. (2018). Overseas Qualified
Nurses’(OQNs) perspectives and experiences of intraprofessional and nurse-patient
communication through a Community of Practice lens.
Collegian.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095166
Prinja, S., Gupta, A., Verma, R., Bahuguna, P., Kumar, D., Kaur, M., & Kumar, R. (2016). Cost
of delivering health care services in public sector primary and community health centres
in North India. PloS one, 11(8), e0160986.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160986

11
COMPARATIVE STUDY
Saramma, P. P., Raj, L. S., Dash, P. K., & Sarma, P. S. (2016). Assessment of long-term impact
of formal certified cardiopulmonary resuscitation training program among nurses. Indian
journal of critical care medicine: peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of
Critical Care Medicine, 20(4),
226.https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/52856/251098a.pdf?
sequence=2
So, W. K., Chan, R. J., Truant, T., Trevatt, P., Bialous, S. A., & Barton-Burke, M. (2016). Global
perspectives on cancer health disparities: Impact, utility, and implications for cancer
nursing. Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 3(4), 316.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5214864/
Stubbs, F. (2017). Recruitment of nurses from India and their experiences of an Overseas Nurses
Program. Nursing in critical care, 22(3), 176-183.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095166
Thawesaengskulthai, N., Wongrukmit, P., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2015). Hospital service quality
measurement models: patients from Asia, Europe, Australia and America. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 26(9-10),
1029-1041.http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:865027/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Wakerman, J., Humphreys, J., Wells, R., Kuipers, P., Entwistle, P., & Jones, J. (2017). A
systematic review of primary health care delivery models in rural and remote Australia
1993-2006.https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/119218
Wang, Y., Kung, L., Wang, W. Y. C., & Cegielski, C. G. (2018). An integrated big data
analytics-enabled transformation model: Application to health care. Information &