Search

Introduction: Globally, there is an increasing demand for quality medical rehabilitation services. This is the first article of a two‐part series showing the findings from the Rehabilitation Choices study in which the main aim was to understand the current landscape of decision‐making, enablers and barriers to access appropriate rehabilitation services in the Australian setting. In Part 1, these insights were sought from a healthcare professionals' perspective. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews with a discussion guide that was codesigned together with rehabilitation clinicians and rehabilitation researchers. Themes and sub‐themes were identified using an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed a heterogeneous group of 31 professionals who are involved in making referral decisions about rehabilitation or who design and deliver rehabilitation programs, including specialist rehabilitation physicians and other medical doctors across in‐patient, outpatient, and primary care settings, allied health professionals, rehabilitation service managers, nurses, multicultural health liaison officers and rehabilitation research scientists. Three key themes relevant to barriers and enablers to service access were identified from the data: defining rehabilitation; a lack of timely access to patient and rehabilitation service data; and patient diversity not expected by the system. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals who make decisions about rehabilitation referrals and services feel that it was necessary for them to keep up to date with information relating to rehabilitation services. There was some concern regarding what rehabilitation constituted and what services were available for different clinical indications. They also indicated that current systems did not consider diversity among patients' needs and goals. Their recommendations included the need for better communication pathways, improved referral systems and resources that could help provide best practice of rehabilitative care in the future. Patient or Public Contribution: Three study team members had a lived experience of rehabilitation as a patient or carer, and previous experience participating in qualitative research. They worked with the study team to codesign the recruitment strategy, participant‐facing communications, the interview discussion guide, and the approach to the conduct of activities with participants and in the interpretation and contextualization of findings and all were involved in writing this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Design thinking is an iterative process that innovates solutions through a person‐centric approach and is increasingly used across health contexts. The person‐centric approach lends itself to working with groups with complex needs. One such group is families experiencing economic hardship, who are vulnerable to food insecurity and face challenges with child feeding. Objective: This study describes the application of a design thinking framework, utilizing mixed methods, including co‐design, to develop a responsive child‐feeding intervention for Australian families—'Eat, Learn, Grow'. Methods: Guided by the five stages of design thinking, which comprises empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing. We engaged with parents/caregivers of a child aged 6 months to 3 years through co‐design workshops (n = 13), direct observation of mealtimes (n = 10), a cross‐sectional survey (n = 213) and semistructured interviews (n = 29). Findings across these methods were synthesized using affinity mapping to clarify the intervention parameters. Parent user testing (n = 12) was conducted online with intervention prototypes to determine acceptability and accessibility. A co‐design workshop with child health experts (n = 9) was then undertaken to review and co‐design content for the final intervention. Results: Through the design thinking process, an innovative digital child‐feeding intervention was created. This intervention utilized a mobile‐first design and consisted of a series of short and interactive modules that used a learning technology tool. The design is based on the concept of microlearning and responds to participants' preferences for visual, brief and plain language information accessed via a mobile phone. User testing sessions with parents and the expert co‐design workshop indicated that the intervention was highly acceptable. Conclusions: Design thinking encourages researchers to approach problems creatively and to design health interventions that align with participant needs. Applying mixed methods—including co‐design— within this framework allows for a better understanding of user contexts, preferences and priorities, ensuring solutions are more acceptable and likely to be engaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Context: Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery‐based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery‐Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field. Design and Participants: A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co‐developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed. Results: This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer–researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers. Conclusion: Discovery‐based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery‐based research process through a coordinated, organisation‐wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings. Patient or Public Contribution: Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co‐developed and pilot‐tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co‐authors by editing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]