Health policy OPEN · 2026
Genres and typologies of standard paediatric service public funding model provisions for speech-language pathology management: A scoping review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nickless T, Davidson B, Gold L, Dowell R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Successive Australian healthcare policies promoting privatisation have increased demand for independent speech-language pathology (SLP) services. This growth has intensified pressure on healthcare funding mechanisms and highlighted confusion in the literature between health financing systems and healthcare funding provisions at the funding model level. In response, public funding arrangements have increasingly supported access to private SLP services for Australian children and young people. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe current public funding models (PFMs) used to access standard paediatric SLP funding through Australian independent SLP providers.
METHOD: Scoping review methodology was undertaken and incorporated search terms synonymous with funding mechanisms, population-based, block and individualised funding.
RESULT: Iterative searching and screening of three health and two scholarly business databases unveiled eighty-six (n = 86) articles, revealing six genres of PFMs and nine associated typologies. The review identified that seven (n = 7) contemporary PFMs were used to access Australian independent SLP services.
CONCLUSION: Health funding and health financing serve different functions within healthcare systems. Compared with the extensive literature on health financing, research on health funding remains limited. A key contribution of this scoping review was the identification of themes and the systematic classification of PFMs by genre and typology, providing a blueprint for understanding past, current, and future PFMs. Furthermore, mapping Australian independent SLP services across funding models and typologies highlighted the diversity of public funding provisions within Australia. Future research should examine how policy architects can balance increasing demand, integration of the latest scientific evidence-base, and equitable access to SLP services.
METHOD: Scoping review methodology was undertaken and incorporated search terms synonymous with funding mechanisms, population-based, block and individualised funding.
RESULT: Iterative searching and screening of three health and two scholarly business databases unveiled eighty-six (n = 86) articles, revealing six genres of PFMs and nine associated typologies. The review identified that seven (n = 7) contemporary PFMs were used to access Australian independent SLP services.
CONCLUSION: Health funding and health financing serve different functions within healthcare systems. Compared with the extensive literature on health financing, research on health funding remains limited. A key contribution of this scoping review was the identification of themes and the systematic classification of PFMs by genre and typology, providing a blueprint for understanding past, current, and future PFMs. Furthermore, mapping Australian independent SLP services across funding models and typologies highlighted the diversity of public funding provisions within Australia. Future research should examine how policy architects can balance increasing demand, integration of the latest scientific evidence-base, and equitable access to SLP services.