Search

Background: This study examines the perceptions of the Australian public canvassed in 2021 during the COVID‐19 pandemic about their health system compared to four previous surveys (2008, 2010, 2012 and 2018). Methods: In 2021, a nationwide online survey was conducted with a representative sample of Australians (N = 5100) recruited via market research panels. The results were compared to previous nationwide Australian survey samples from 2018 (N = 1024), 2012 (N = 1200), 2010 (N = 1201) and 2008 (N = 1146). The survey included questions consistent with previous polls regarding self‐reported health status and overall opinions of, and confidence in, the Australian health system. Results: There was an increase in the proportion of respondents reporting positive perceptions at each survey between 2008 and 2021, with a significantly higher proportion of respondents expressing a more positive view of the Australian healthcare system in 2021 compared to previous years (χ2(8, N = 9645) = 487.63, p < 0.001). In 2021, over two‐thirds of respondents (n = 3949/5100, 77.4%) reported that following the COVID‐19 pandemic, their confidence in the Australian healthcare system had either remained the same (n = 2433/5100, 47.7%) or increased (n = 1516/5100, 29.7%). Overall, respondents living in regional or remote regions, younger Australians (< 45 years) and women held less positive views in relation to the system. In 2021, the most frequently identified area for urgent improvement was the need for more healthcare workers (n = 1350/3576, 37.8%), an area of concern particularly for Australians residing in regional or remote areas (n = 590/1385, 42.6%). Conclusions: Irrespective of disruptions to the Australian healthcare system caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic, Australians' perceptions of their healthcare system were positive in 2021. However, concerns were raised about inadequate workforce capacity and the cost of healthcare, with differences identified by age groups and geographical location. Patient or Public Contribution: Health consumer representatives from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia contributed to the co‐design, deployment, analysis and interpretation of the results of this survey. J.A. and L.W. from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia contributed to the development of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite high levels of mental ill‐health amongst young people (aged 15–30), this group demonstrates low help‐seeking and high drop‐out from mental health services (MHS). Whilst shared decision‐making can assist people in receiving appropriate and effective health care, young people frequently report that they do not feel involved in treatment decisions. The current study focused on co‐design of a clinical education and participant information programme for the Brain and Mind Centre Youth Model of Care. This model, which articulates a youth‐focused form of highly personalised and measurement‐based care, is designed to promote shared decision‐making between young people and clinical service providers. Methods: We conducted workshops with 24 young people (16–31; MAge = 21.5) who had accessed mental health services. Participants were asked what advice they would give to young people entering services, before giving advice on existing materials. Workshops were conducted and transcripts were coded using thematic analysis by two lived experience researchers and a clinical researcher. Results: Young people found it empowering to be educated on transdiagnostic models of mental illness, namely clinical staging, which gives them a better understanding of why certain treatments may be inappropriate and ineffective, and thus reduce self‐blame. Similarly, young people had limited knowledge of links between mental health and other life domains and found it helpful to be educated on multidisciplinary treatment options. Measurement‐based care was seen as an important method of improving shared decision‐making between young people and health professionals; however, to facilitate shared decision‐making, young people also wanted better information on their rights in care and more support to share their expertise in their own needs, values and treatment preferences. Conclusions: These findings will inform the delivery of the further development and implementation of a youth‐specific clinical education and participant information programme for the BMC Youth Model. Patient or Public Contribution: Workshops were facilitated by researchers with lived expertise in mental ill‐health (A.H. and/or C.G.) and a clinical researcher (who has expertise as an academic and a clinical psychologist). A.H. and C.G. were also involved in conceptualisation, analysis, interpretation, review and editing of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor quality sleep in hospitals may be problematic for patients, negatively impacting their recovery and wellbeing. This project aimed to investigate the effectiveness of codesign in addressing key issues affecting sleep disruption in the healthcare setting. Methods: Codesign with patients, staff and consumer representatives was conducted in an acute metropolitan tertiary public hospital in Sydney, Australia. Through a four‐stage process, a multimodal intervention to address and reduce the impact of sleep disruptions among hospital inpatients was created. Pre‐ and post‐intervention evaluation was used to determine changes in patient‐reported sleep disruption. Results: 'The HUSH Project' (Help Us Support Healing) intervention resulted from the codesign process, which included the provision of HUSH Sleep Packs (with earplugs, eye masks and herbal tea), patient information resources, and ward‐based Sleep Champions. Survey data from 210 patients revealed a statistically significant decrease in patient‐reported noise disturbances for patients in shared rooms following the 4‐week intervention period of the HUSH program. Conclusion: The HUSH Project demonstrated that a novel multimodal intervention may be valuable in reducing sleep disruption in hospitals. These findings also indicate the benefits of using codesign methodology to support improvement projects that seek to enhance patient experiences of care. Patient or Public Contribution: This project utilised codesign methodology, which involved significant contributions from patients and consumer representatives, from research conceptualisation into intervention design, implementation and project evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preventative healthcare is crucial for improving individual patient outcomes and is integral to sustainable health systems. The effectiveness of prevention programs is enhanced by activated populations who are capable of managing their own health and are proactive to keep themselves well. However, little is known about the level of activation among people drawn from general populations. We used the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) to address this knowledge gap. Methods: A representative, population‐based survey of Australian adults was conducted in October 2021 during the Delta strain outbreak of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Comprehensive demographic information was collected, and the participants completed the Kessler‐6 psychological distress scale (K6) and PAM. Multinomial and binomial logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the effect of demographic factors on PAM scores, which are categorised into four levels: 1—participants disengaged with their health; 2—becoming aware of how to manage their health; 3—acting on their health; and 4—engaging with preventative healthcare and advocating for themselves. Results: Of 5100 participants, 7.8% scored at PAM level 1; 13.7% level 2, 45.3% level 3, and 33.2% level 4. The mean score was 66.1, corresponding to PAM level 3. More than half of the participants (59.2%) reported having one or more chronic conditions. Respondents aged 18 to 24 years old were twice as likely to score PAM level 1 compared with people aged 25–44 (p <.001) or people aged over 65 years (p <.05). Speaking a language other than English at home was significantly associated with having low PAM (p <.05). Greater psychological distress scores (K6) were significantly predictive of low PAM scores (p <.001). Conclusion: Overall, Australian adults showed high levels of patient activation in 2021. People with lower incomes, of younger age, and those experiencing psychological distress were more likely to have low activation. Understanding the level of activation enables targeting sociodemographic groups for extra support to increase the capacity to engage in prevention activities. Conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic, our study provides a baseline for comparison as we move out of the pandemic and associated restrictions and lockdowns. Patient or Public Contribution: The study and survey questions were co‐designed with consumer researchers from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF) as equal partners. Researchers from CHF were involved in the analysis of data and production of all publications using data from the consumer sentiment survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for effective health service solutions to provide greater structure and support for implementing evidence‐based practice in back pain care. Patient involvement in developing these solutions is crucial to increase relevance, acceptability and uptake. Objectives: To determine patients' perceived needs and barriers to best‐practice back pain care, and potential solutions to better address care needs. The study is the third in a series of needs assessment studies feeding into the 'idea generation' for service design in a large teaching hospital in a culturally and linguistically diverse community in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Design: We conducted a combination of focus groups and in‐depth interviews using an interpretive description approach. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify the main themes. Setting and Participants: We purposively sampled patients with diverse characteristics from the neurosurgery and physiotherapy outpatient clinics, in particular those whose primary language was English, Arabic, Persian or Mandarin. Non‐English audio recordings were translated and transcribed by bilingual researchers. Results: There were 24 participants (focus groups = 9; individual interviews = 15) when data saturation was reached. The analysis identified three key themes with several subthemes around what service designers needed to understand in helping people with back pain in this setting: (1) This is who I am; (2) It's not working for me; and (3) What I think I need. Discussion and Conclusion: This study highlights that perceived unmet needs of patients are underpinned by unhelpful beliefs about the causes of and solutions for back pain, misaligned care expectations, unclear expectations of the hospital role and fragmentations in the health system. To design and implement a service that can deliver better back pain care, several solutions need to be integrated around: developing new resources that challenge unhelpful beliefs and set realistic expectations; improving access to education and self‐management resources; focusing on individualized care; using a collaborative multidisciplinary approach within the hospital; and better connecting with and directing primary health care services. Patient or Public Contribution: A consumer representative of the Western Sydney Local Health District provided input during study conceptualisation and is duly recognized in the Acknowledgements section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The views and experiences of the Australian public are an important barometer of the health system. This study provides key findings about the changing views held by Australians over time regarding their individual experiences and perceptions of the overall performance of the health system. Methods: A population‐based online survey was conducted in 2018 (N = 1024). Participants were recruited through market research panels. The results were compared with previous Australian population survey data sets from 2008 (N = 1146), 2010 (N = 1201) and 2012 (N = 1200), each of which used different population samples. The survey included questions consistent with previous surveys regarding self‐reported health status, and questions about use, opinions and experiences of the health system. Results: Overall, there has been a shift in views from 2008 to 2018, with a higher proportion of respondents now viewing the Australian health‐care system more positively (X2 (2, N = 4543) = 96.59, P <.001). In 2018, areas for attention continued to include the following: the need for more doctors, nurses and other health workers (29.0%); lower costs for care or Orion medicines (27.8%); more access to care (13.1%); and enhancements in residential aged care (17.3% rated these services as 'bad' or 'very bad'). Conclusions: This research suggests that Australians' perceptions of their health‐care system have significantly improved over the last decade; however, concerns have emerged over access to medicines, inadequate workforce capacity and the quality of aged care facilities. Our study highlights the value of periodically conducting public sentiment surveys to identify potential emerging health system problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research on workforce development for high‐quality dementia care more often focuses on enhancing employee knowledge and skill and less on managing employee stress and coping at work. Objective: To review employee stress and coping in response to high job demands in community‐based dementia care organizations in Tasmania, Australia. Methods: Stress and coping in response to job roles of 25 community‐based dementia care workers were reviewed using self‐report questionnaire data. Data were analysed for descriptive results and at an individual case level. Individual participant scores were reviewed for clinically significant stress and coping factors to create worker profiles of adjustment. Results: Two adjustment profiles were found. The ‘global resilience’ profile, where workers showed positive adjustment and resilience indicating they found their jobs highly rewarding, were very confident in their abilities at work and had a strong match between their personal and organizational values. The second ‘isolated distress’ profile was only found in a minority and included poor opportunities for job advancement, a missmatch in personal and work values or clinically high levels of psychological distress. Conclusion: Aged care workplaces that advocate employee well‐being and support employees to cope with their work roles may be more likely to retain motivated and committed staff. Future research should consider employee stress and coping at the workforce level, and how this can influence high‐quality care delivery by applying the measures identified for this study. Comparative research across different care settings using meta‐analytic studies may then be possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: People with chronic conditions who are often in contact with the health‐care system are well placed to reflect on how services meet their needs. Some research characterizes people who use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) as a distinct group who opt out of the mainstream health system. However, many CAM users are people with chronic or terminal health conditions who concurrently use mainstream health‐care services. The difference in perspectives between people with chronic conditions who do or do not use CAM has received little attention by researchers. Objective: To explore the views of CAM users with chronic conditions and identify their perspectives on the health system. Design and Setting: In‐depth interviews and a self‐administered questionnaire were used to collect data on care‐seeking, self‐management and CAM use among people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease living in Victoria, Australia. Results: One in four CAM practitioner users was partly motivated to use CAM as a result of their dissatisfaction with the mainstream health system. In general, their dissatisfaction mirrored the concerns of the general population. This included the perceived lack of a humanistic or person‐centred approach, which was central to problems relating to individuals' clinical encounters as well as to health system design. Discussion and Conclusion: Participants' concerns suggest room for improvement in the Australian health system to better reflect patients' needs. A systems approach is needed to reorient health‐care practitioners to modify the organization of care because of the incentives embedded in the structure of the health‐care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]