Search

This paper outlines a systematic review and meta-analyses to identify, describe, and evaluate randomised and non-randomised controlled trials of psychological programs targeting the mental health, professional burnout, and/or wellbeing of school classroom teachers. Eighty-eight unique studies were identified for inclusion in the review, and of those 46 were included in the meta-analyses (23 randomised controlled trials). In randomised controlled trials, the programs examined had large effects on stress (g=0.93), and moderate effects on anxiety (g=0.65), depression (g=0.51), professional burnout (g=0.57), and wellbeing (g=0.56) at post. In non-randomised controlled trials, programs had moderate effects on stress (g=0.50), and small effects on anxiety (g=0.38) and wellbeing (g=0.38) at post. Studies were heterogeneous in design and methodological quality was generally poor, particularly in non-randomised controlled trials. There was an inadequate number of comparisons to perform sub-group analyses, meta-regression, or publication bias analyses. Most of the programs examined required significant time, effort, and resources to deliver and complete. These programs may not translate well outside of research trials to real-world contexts due to teachers being time-poor. Priorities for research include using methodologically rigorous designs, developing programs for teachers with teachers (i.e. co-design), and considering implementation factors to ensure feasibility, acceptability, and uptake. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROPSERO - CRD42020159805.

Skin cancer is a growing global problem and a significant health and economic burden. Despite the practical necessity for skin cancer to be managed in primary care settings, little is known about how quality of care is or should be measured in this setting. This scoping review aimed to capture the breadth and range of contemporary evidence related to the measurement of quality in skin cancer management in primary care settings. Six databases were searched for relevant texts reporting on quality measurement in primary care skin cancer management. Data from 46 texts published since 2011 were extracted, and quality measures were catalogued according to the three domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process and outcome). Quality measures within each domain were inductively analysed into 13 key emergent groups. These represented what were deemed to be the most relevant components of skin cancer management as related to structure, process or outcomes measurement. Four groups related to the structural elements of care provision (e.g. diagnostic tools and equipment), five related to the process of care delivery (e.g. diagnostic processes) and four related to the outcomes of care (e.g. poor treatment outcomes). A broad range of quality measures have been documented, based predominantly on articles using retrospective cohort designs; systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Implementation science focuses on improving the dissemination, uptake and adoption of evidence into practice. Over the last decade, implementation science research has proliferated, particularly in healthcare and social science. The key synthesis of implementation frameworks conducted by Meyers and colleagues in 2012, and the resulting Quality Implementation Framework, has yet to be updated to incorporate this research. This protocol proposes an umbrella review of reviews (RORs) to synthesise the literature since 2012 on implementation science in the fields of healthcare and social science and provides recommendations for an updated Quality Implementation Framework., Methods and Analysis: This ROR will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO and Web of Science) will be used to identify peer-reviewed meta-analyses, systematic reviews and scoping reviews published in the English language since January 2012 and report on the development, application or update of one or more implementation frameworks in healthcare or social science contexts. Multiple reviewers will be involved in the screening of articles and extraction of data, and the quality of reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. The outcome of interest is the content of implementation science frameworks reported in the included reviews. The content of these frameworks will be synthesised, aggregated and mapped to the four phases and 14 steps outlined in the original Quality Implementation Framework using both deductive and inductive analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required as this ROR protocol and the resulting ROR do not involve primary data collection. The protocol as well as the ROR will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023475994., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KH, AGO, MJ, JM, LAE, SS, LP, GF and SPJ declare no conflict of interest. JB is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board at BMJ Open. This association played no role in the decision to submit the protocol for publication in BMJ Open and presents no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: This study comprehensively reviews the contemporary empirical literature on direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine services within primary care., Method: MEDLINE, Embase and SCOPUS were strategically searched and screened. Data on the modality of consultations, population of focus, condition of focus and treatment of focus were extracted, narratively synthesised and tabulated., Results: Forty-four articles were included in this review. Most used quantitative methods, with predominantly cross-sectional or retrospective cohort designs. DTC telemedicine user characteristics and perspectives were most researched, followed by quality and safety. Most services used video or text messaging. Articles typically examined a specific health condition (eg acute respiratory infections) and its treatment, and several focused on a specific population (eg men)., Discussion: In light of the poor evidence base and lack of rigorous studies, there is a critical need for more robust research on DTC telemedicine within primary care. Quality assessment tool development and health economics analyses are necessary to support the integratation of DTC telemedicine services with traditional primary care systems and improve primary healthcare quality and efficiency.

Background: Integrated care can be broadly defined as the delivery of high-quality and safe care for patients as they cross organizational boundaries or when care is delivered with multiple health care teams, professions, or organizations. Successful integration of care services is contingent on multiple and complex factors across macro, meso, and micro levels of health and social care systems in lower-, middle-, and higher-income countries. Previous priorities for the future development of integrated care have focused on designing and implementing models or approaches to integrated care rather than establishing the research needed to underpin them. This study aimed to address this evidence gap by developing a consensus on international research priorities related to integration of care and cross-boundary working., Methods: We conducted a sequential electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study from September 2023 to December 2023. The eDelphi process consisted of initial priority generation followed by two rounds of consensus development via an online survey. Sixty-six priorities were generated by 19 delegates at an international conference workshop titled, 'Priority setting for future research on integration of care and cross-boundary working'. Workshop delegates then identified other experts in integrated care and cross-boundary working from their networks. In each eDelphi round, participants then provided item-by-item responses using a seven-point Likert scale, with consensus defined a priori as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree). Priorities that reached consensus were conceptually grouped into topics., Results: Twenty-five of 66 unique (37.9%) research priorities achieved consensus after two eDelphi rounds. In Round 1, 63/85 (74.1%) experts from 10 countries across 4 continents achieved consensus on 12/66 (18.2%) priorities. In Round 2, 51/63 (81.0%) experts achieved consensus on a further 13/54 (24.1%) priorities. From the 25 priorities, we derived six conceptual groupings that represent broad topics for future research on integrated care and cross-boundary working: (i) access to care, (ii) data sharing and technology, (iii) measurement of care quality, (iv) patient experience and satisfaction, (v) service design, integration and governance, and (vi) teamwork and leadership., Conclusion: Integrating care services and improving cross-boundary working is important for improving the quality of care provided to patients, regardless of country. Therefore, the conceptual topics and individual priorities identified in this study can inform policymakers, practitioners, and researchers when designing or evaluating integrated care services across the world in pursuit of improved integrated care systems., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care.)

Objective: To review the international literature and assess the ways healthcare systems are mitigating and can mitigate their carbon footprint, which is currently estimated to be more than 4.4% of global emissions., Design: Systematic review of empirical studies and grey literature to examine how healthcare services and institutions are limiting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions., Data Sources: Eight databases and authoritative reports were searched from inception dates to November 2023., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Teams of investigators screened relevant publications against the inclusion criteria (eg, in English; discussed impact of healthcare systems on climate change), applying four quality appraisal tools, and results are reported in accordance with PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses)., Results: Of 33 737 publications identified, 32 998 (97.8%) were excluded after title and abstract screening; 536 (72.5%) of the remaining publications were excluded after full text review. Two additional papers were identified, screened, and included through backward citation tracking. The 205 included studies applied empirical (n=88, 42.9%), review (n=60, 29.3%), narrative descriptive (n=53, 25.9%), and multiple (n=4, 2.0%) methods. More than half of the publications (51.5%) addressed the macro level of the healthcare system. Nine themes were identified using inductive analysis: changing clinical and surgical practices (n=107); enacting policies and governance (n=97); managing physical waste (n=83); changing organisational behaviour (n=76); actions of individuals and groups (eg, advocacy, community involvement; n=74); minimising travel and transportation (n=70); using tools for measuring GHG emissions (n=70); reducing emissions related to infrastructure (n=63); and decarbonising the supply chain (n=48)., Conclusions: Publications presented various strategies and tactics to reduce GHG emissions. These included changing clinical and surgical practices; using policies such as benchmarking and reporting at a facility level, and financial levers to reduce emissions from procurement; reducing physical waste; changing organisational culture through workforce training; supporting education on the benefits of decarbonisation; and involving patients in care planning. Numerous tools and frameworks were presented for measuring GHG emissions, but implementation and evaluation of the sustainability of initiatives were largely missing. At the macro level, decarbonisation approaches focused on energy grid emissions, infrastructure efficiency, and reducing supply chain emissions, including those from agriculture and supply of food products. Decarbonisation mechanisms at the micro and meso system levels ranged from reducing low value care, to choosing lower GHG options (eg, anaesthetic gases, rescue inhalers), to reducing travel. Based on these strategies and tactics, this study provides a framework to support the decarbonisation of healthcare systems., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022383719., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: financial support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia, for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: This study explored potential quality measures to improve skin cancer management in primary care settings, and the barriers and facilitators associated with their implementation., Design: Semistructured interviews and qualitative proforma surveys were conducted with skin cancer experts from a range of healthcare settings. Framework analysis was employed to identify key groups of quality measures within the domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process, outcome). Interview and survey data were triangulated to identify common groups of quality measures, barriers and facilitators., Participants: We purposively recruited skin cancer experts from Australia and internationally with knowledge and experience in skin cancer management. The final sample consisted of 15 participants who had clinical or academic backgrounds., Results: Participants unequivocally expressed the need for quality measures to guide skin cancer care. Ten groups of quality measures were identified: three groups related to the structural elements of care (eg, diagnostic tools), four related to the processes of care (eg, diagnostic process) and three related to outcomes of care (eg, treatment outcomes). Implementation barriers included clinician resistance, system inadequacies and external factors (eg, patient risk). Facilitators included incentives, education, agreed and feasible indicators and support and guidance., Conclusions: To service a growing population of skin cancer patients in Australia, the role of primary care needs to be more clearly specified, and its care providers supported and more engaged in quality improvement processes. Structure, process and outcome quality measures, derived from detailed guidance for primary care settings, can be used to track practitioner performance and facilitate ongoing improvement., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DW is a member of the National Skin Cancer Centres board of directors., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)