Search

Home country re-entry from cross-cultural missionary work abroad may be associated with psychological distress. Re-entrants experience multiple losses including loss of identity which may be associated with personal/relational identity gaps and depersonalization/dehumanization. However, research suggests that some re-entrants are resilient with good mental health, while others are fragile with poor mental health. The aims of this paper are to explore the nature and frequency of re-entering missionaries' identity gaps and their depersonalization/dehumanization in resilient and fragile re-entrants. Fifteen re-entering adult Australian cross-cultural missionary workers from four interdenominational Australian mission organizations completed semi-structured interviews. Results were analysed using modified Consensual Qualitative Research methods. Links were established between personal/relational identity gaps, depersonalization/dehumanization and resilience on re-entry. Implications for re-entrants' care are discussed with suggestions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a measure of self-perceived health status or health-related quality of life. They have been used to support provider-patient decisions, healthcare delivery, and value-based healthcare models. A barrier to routine collection of PROMs is the perception that PROMs lack clinical utility. As such, it is important to establish clinicians' acceptability of the PROM prior to large-scale implementation. This study explored the acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic PROM in healthcare services from the perspective of healthcare staff. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were completed from September 2020 to March 2021 with 26 staff from two multi-disciplinary community healthcare services in Melbourne, Australia. Interviews explored their experiences of using the EQ-5D-5L in their routine care. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed according to a framework approach, using inductive and deductive techniques. Results: Participants discussed the acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L with reference to four themes: practicalities of use; holistic nature; influence on client care; and influence on health service. Participants found the EQ-5D-5L quick and easy to administer, and appreciated that it measured multiple domains of health that were relevant to their clients' care. They believed the EQ-5D-5L helped to identify client problems, and inform service delivery. They also reported features that were less acceptable, including a lack of item specificity to some healthcare disciplines. Participants reported the challenge of managing conflict between their assessment of the client's health and the client's perspective of their own health, leading some to question whether the client could provide an accurate reflection of their own health. Conclusions: The EQ-5D-5L has several features that healthcare staff viewed as acceptable for routine collection and use in healthcare. Training on the validity of the patient reported perspective and broadening the scope of PROMs collection beyond the EQ-5D-5L should be considered to facilitate large-scale implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]