Table 1 |
||
|
Summary of strengths and weaknesses of the RRMA, ARIA and ASGC Remoteness classifications |
||
| Classification |
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
|
|
||
| RRMA |
• RRMA is a simple tool to apply both for research and administration purposes, including
the allocation of health resources. |
• The restriction to SLA boundaries, resulting in large, heterogeneous areas being
equally classified. |
| • Due to the strong influence of population size, RRMA often equally classifies towns
of similar size (intuitive). |
• The use of straight-line distances and SLA centroids, which can result in highly
imprecise measures. |
|
| • The use of three zones (metropolitan, rural and remote) is reasonably logical. |
• The use of population density is meaningless because of the varying size and nature
of SLA boundaries. |
|
| • RRMA is preferred by many national organisations over ASGC Remoteness |
• RRMA has never been updated and still uses 1991 population counts. |
|
|
|
||
| ARIA |
• The flexibility to measure remoteness at any geographic boundary level by using
a one kilometre grid. |
• Only measures geographical remoteness, giving many examples of highly dissimilar
towns having the same classification (e.g. Port Macquarie and Gundagai). |
| • The additional precision from using road distances and service town locations, rather
than straight line distances and SLA centroids. |
• The separation of the five remoteness categories is somewhat subjective. |
|
| • The clearer conceptualisation of measuring only geographical remoteness of localities
(e.g. not muddied by also measuring density). |
• Penalises smaller, more densely populated states (e.g. over 75% of rural Victoria's
population is defined as 'highly accessible'. |
|
| • Use of the category label 'accessible' and the term 'accessibility' within its name
(it is not a measure of access) |
||
|
|
||
| ASGC-RA |
• All points listed under ARIA, plus: |
• All points listed under ARIA (except the last point), plus: |
| • More refined methodology (additional service centre category, better separation
of major cities) |
• Extreme heterogeneity within some areas, especially Inner Regional and sometimes
Outer Regional |
|
| • A change of labels including the use of 'regional' rather than 'accessible' |
||
| • Updated by ABS as part of the ASGC |
||
|
|
||
|
McGrail and Humphreys Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2009 6:28 doi:10.1186/1743-8462-6-28 |
||
