CHRONIC DISEASE SELF MANAGEMENT

Chronic Disease Self Management in Underserved Marginalized Populations and Indigenous Australians

Chronic Disease Self Management in Underserved Marginalized Populations and Indigenous Australians

Introduction

The management of chronic diseases is an issue that has forever haunted researchers in search of an ideal system for implementation. However, even though countless researchers have clearly been performed on the subject, there remains the undeniable need for further research (ABS, 2001; ACAM, 2005). As a result, a major part of much needed research is the analysis of former research - in order to identify factors that may have been left behind and to recognize patterns that may only be visible through an analysis of the 'bigger picture' (AIHW, 2002; AIHW, 2004). The reason because of which it is so complicated to come to a sound and acceptable conclusion is because chronic disease self management brings incorporates the complex factor of self management. As a result, it is imperative to realize that there is a need to conduct well-focused research with a specific scope (AIHW, 2004a; Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2007).

In essence, there is a need to narrow down research areas pertaining to chronic disease self management. For the same reason, the focus of this study was limited to chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, asthma and diabetes. These diseases were selected to be given primary consideration because they are essentially recognized by the National Primary Healthcare Strategy as well as by the Australia Government Closing the Gap National Partnership (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Sydney, 2006. The essential purpose of this discussion is to present a critical discussion (addressing the themes) and outline the relationship the chosen issue of chronic disease Self Management.

Discussion & Analyses

As research methods continue to evolve rapidly, it becomes imperative to give consideration to chosen research methods before their implementation can be allowed (Brown, Garcia, Kouzekanani, Hanis, 2002). This precautionary approach is mandated by the role and relevance that research can have if the findings are authentic and free from the influences of the research methodology limitations (Clark, Hampson, Avery & Simpson, 2004a; Clark, Janz, Dodge, Schork, Fingerlin, Wheeler, Liang, Keteyian & Santinga, 2000). Researches in which the research methodology becomes a threat and/or a liability can render the research findings useless and strip the research conclusions of their authenticity. In such cases, the entire exercise goes to waste (Cote, Cartier, Robichaud, Boutin, Malo, Rouleau & Boulet, 2000; Gallefoss & Bakke, 2000). It is therefore crucial to recognize and accept the limitations of the research methodology selected for implementation. Needless to state, this demands the comparison of different research methods in order to ascertain the most adequate research method for the particular research (Griffiths, Motlib & Azad, 2005; Jordan & Osborne, 2007).

This study was carried out while keeping the above mentioned intricacies in mind. It was accepted that not all studies manage to reach conclusions that are outright error free (Kauppinen, Sintonen, Vilkka & Tukiainen 1999; Kauppinen, Vilkka, Sintonen, Klaukka & Tukiainen, ...