Andrea Hernan

Why did they leave and what can they tell us? Allied health professionals leaving rural settings

The aim of this paper is to explore the lack of retention of allied health professionals in rural areas in Victoria, Australia. A structured telephone interview was used to elicit responses from 32 allied health professionals from south-west, central-west and north-east Victoria about their working experiences and reasons for resignation. The data revealed that work experiences in rural areas can be summarised within three domains: organisational, professional and personal/community. Under the organisational domain the participants were mainly focussed on the way in which their work arrangements require them to be both more generalist in their approach to day-to-day work, and more expansive in shouldering management style functions in the workplace. Under the professional domain there were three major issues; clinical, career and education/training. The personal/community domain focussed on issues to do with their affinity for their workplace as well as their location in a rural place. The attempts by government to address some of the leading factors for retention of allied health professionals are perhaps too narrowly focussed on the public sector and could encompass a wider approach.

Scaling-up from an implementation trial to state-wide coverage: results from the preliminary Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study.

BackgroundThe successful Greater Green Triangle Diabetes Prevention Program (GGT DPP), a small implementation trial, has been scaled-up to the Victorian state-wide ‘Life!’ programme with over 10,000 individuals enrolled. The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS) is an evaluation of the translation from the GGT DPP to the Life! programme. We report results from the preliminary phase (pMDPS) of this evaluation.MethodsThe pMDPS is a randomised controlled trial with 92 individuals aged 50 to 75 at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes randomised to Life! or usual care. Intervention consisted of six structured 90-minute group sessions: five fortnightly sessions and the final session at 8 months. Participants underwent anthropometric and laboratory tests at baseline and 12 months, and provided self-reported psychosocial, dietary, and physical activity measures. Intervention group participants additionally underwent these tests at 3 months. Paired t tests were used to analyse within-group changes over time. Chi-square tests were used to analyse differences between groups in goals met at 12 months. Differences between groups for changes over time were tested with generalised estimating equations and analysis of covariance.ResultsIntervention participants significantly improved at 12 months in mean body mass index (−0.98 kg/m2, standard error (SE)%20=%200.26), weight (−2.65 kg, SE%20=%200.72), waist circumference (−7.45 cm, SE%20=%201.15), and systolic blood pressure (−3.18 mmHg, SE%20=%201.26), increased high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (0.07 mmol/l, SE%20=%200.03), reduced energy from total (−2.00%, SE%20=%200.78) and saturated fat (−1.54%, SE%20=%200.41), and increased fibre intake (1.98 g/1,000 kcal energy, SE%20=%200.47). In controls, oral glucose at 2 hours deteriorated (0.59 mmol/l, SE%20=%200.27). Only waist circumference reduced significantly (−4.02 cm, SE%20=%200.95).Intervention participants significantly outperformed controls over 12 months for body mass index and fibre intake. After baseline adjustment, they also showed greater weight loss and reduced saturated fat versus total energy intake.At least 5% weight loss was achieved by 32% of intervention participants versus 0% controls.ConclusionspMDPS results indicate that scaling-up from implementation trial to state-wide programme is possible. The system design for Life! was fit for purpose of scaling-up from efficacy to effectiveness.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000507280

Healthy minds for country youth: Help‐seeking for depression among rural adolescents

OBJECTIVE To assess depression recognition, barriers to accessing help from health professionals and potential sources of help for depression among rural adolescents. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Two rural secondary schools in south-east South Australia. PARTICIPANTS Seventy-four secondary school students aged 14 to 16 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Depression recognition was measured using a depression vignette. Helpfulness of professionals, barriers to seeking help and help-seeking behaviours for depression were assessed by self-report questionnaire. RESULTS Depression was identified in the vignette by 73% (n = 54) of participants. Participants indicated that it would be more helpful for the vignette character to see other health professionals (98.6%, 95% CI, 92.0-100.0%) than a doctor (82.4%, 72.1-89.6%). Barriers to seeking help from doctors and other health professionals were categorised into logistical and personal barriers. Participants agreed more strongly to personal (mean = 2.86) than logistical barriers (mean = 2.67, P < 0.05) for seeing a doctor. Boys and girls responded differently overall, and to personal barriers to seeing an other health professional. Sources of help were divided into three categories: formal, informal and external. Informal sources of help (mean = 4.02) were identified as more helpful than both formal (mean = 3.66) and external sources (mean = 3.72, P < 0.001). Gender differences were observed within and between the three sources of help categories. CONCLUSIONS Recognising symptoms of depression was demonstrated in this study. Helpfulness of professionals, barriers to seeking help and potential sources of help for depression were identified. More work is required for improving depression literacy and providing effective interventions specifically for rural adolescents.

Patient and carer identified factors which contribute to safety incidents in primary care: a qualitative study

Background Patients can have an important role in reducing harm in primary-care settings. Learning from patient experience and feedback could improve patient safety. Evidence that captures patients’ views of the various contributory factors to creating safe primary care is largely absent. The aim of this study was to address this evidence gap. Methods Four focus groups and eight semistructured interviews were conducted with 34 patients and carers from south-east Australia. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of primary care. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and specific factors that contribute to safety incidents were identified in the analysis using the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF). Other factors emerging from the data were also ascertained and added to the analytical framework. Results Thirteen factors that contribute to safety incidents in primary care were ascertained. Five unique factors for the primary-care setting were discovered in conjunction with eight factors present in the YCFF from hospital settings. The five unique primary care contributing factors to safety incidents represented a range of levels within the primary-care system from local working conditions to the upstream organisational level and the external policy context. The 13 factors included communication, access, patient factors, external policy context, dignity and respect, primary–secondary interface, continuity of care, task performance, task characteristics, time in the consultation, safety culture, team factors and the physical environment. Discussion Patient and carer feedback of this type could help primary-care professionals better understand and identify potential safety concerns and make appropriate service improvements. The comprehensive range of factors identified provides the groundwork for developing tools that systematically capture the multiple contributory factors to patient safety.

Sustaining modified behaviours learnt in a diabetes prevention program in regional Australia: the role of social context

BackgroundThe Greater Green Triangle diabetes prevention program was conducted in primary health care setting of Victoria and South Australia in 2004–2006. This program demonstrated significant reductions in diabetes risk factors which were largely sustained at 18 month follow-up. The theoretical model utilised in this program achieved its outcomes through improvements in coping self-efficacy and planning. Previous evaluations have concentrated on the behavioural components of the intervention. Other variables external to the main research design may have contributed to the success factors but have yet to be identified. The objective of this evaluation was to identify the extent to which participants in a diabetes prevention program sustained lifestyle changes several years after completing the program and to identify contextual factors that contributed to sustaining changes.MethodsA qualitative evaluation was conducted. Five focus groups were held with people who had completed a diabetes prevention program, several years later to assess the degree to which they had sustained program strategies and to identify contributing factors.ResultsParticipants value the recruitment strategy. Involvement in their own risk assessment was a strong motivator. Learning new skills gave participants a sense of empowerment. Receiving regular pathology reports was a means of self-assessment and a motivator to continue. Strong family and community support contributed to personal motivation and sustained practice.ConclusionsFamily and local community supports constitute the contextual variables reported to contribute to sustained motivation after the program was completed. Behaviour modification programs can incorporate strategies to ensure these factors are recognised and if necessary, strengthened at the local level.

The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundWorldwide, type 2 diabetes (T2DM) prevalence has more than doubled over two decades. In Australia, diabetes is the second highest contributor to the burden of disease. Lifestyle modification programs comprising diet changes, weight loss and moderate physical activity, have been proven to reduce the incidence of T2DM in high risk individuals.As part of the Council of Australia Governments, the State of Victoria committed to develop and support the diabetes prevention program ‘Life! Taking action on diabetes’ (Life!) which has direct lineage from effective clinical and implementation trials from Finland and Australia. The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS) has been set up to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a specific version of the Life! program.Methods/designWe intend to recruit 796 participants for this open randomized clinical trial; 398 will be allocated to the intervention arm and 398 to the usual care arm. Several methods of recruitment will be used in order to maximize the number of participants. Individuals aged 50 to 75 years will be screened with a risk tool (AUSDRISK) to detect those at high risk of developing T2DM. Those with existing diabetes will be excluded. Intervention participants will undergo anthropometric and laboratory tests, and comprehensive surveys at baseline, following the fourth group session (approximately three months after the commencement of the intervention) and 12 months after commencement of the intervention, while control participants will undergo testing at baseline and 12 months only.The intervention consists of an initial individual session followed by a series of five structured-group sessions. The first four group sessions will be carried out at two week intervals and the fifth session will occur eight months after the first group session. The intervention is based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model and sessions will empower and enable the participants to follow the five goals of the Life! program.DiscussionThis study will determine whether the effect of this intervention is larger than the effect of usual care in reducing central obesity and cardiovascular risk factors and thus the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Also it will evaluate how these two options compare economically.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000507280

Challenges of diabetes prevention in the real world: results and lessons from the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study

Objective To assess effectiveness and implementability of the public health programme Life! Taking action on diabetes in Australian people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Research design and methods Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study (MDPS) was a unique study assessing effectiveness of Life! that used a randomized controlled trial design. Intervention participants with AUSDRISK score ≥15 received 1 individual and 5 structured 90 min group sessions. Controls received usual care. Outcome measures were obtained for all participants at baseline and 12 months and, additionally, for intervention participants at 3 months. Per protocol set (PPS) and intention to treat (ITT) analyses were performed. Results PPS analyses were considered more informative from our study. In PPS analyses, intervention participants significantly improved in weight (−1.13 kg, p=0.016), waist circumference (−1.35 cm, p=0.044), systolic (−5.2 mm Hg, p=0.028) and diastolic blood pressure (−3.2 mm Hg, p=0.030) compared with controls. Based on observed weight change, estimated risk of developing diabetes reduced by 9.6% in the intervention and increased by 3.3% in control participants. Absolute 5-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduced significantly for intervention participants by 0.97 percentage points from 9.35% (10.4% relative risk reduction). In control participants, the risk increased by 0.11 percentage points (1.3% relative risk increase). The net effect for the change in CVD risk was −1.08 percentage points of absolute risk (p=0.013). Conclusions MDPS effectively reduced the risk of diabetes and CVD, but the intervention effect on weight and waist reduction was modest due to the challenges in recruiting high-risk individuals and the abbreviated intervention.

Implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne diabetes prevention study

BackgroundMany public health interventions based on apparently sound evidence from randomised controlled trials encounter difficulties when being scaled up within health systems. Even under the best of circumstances, implementation is exceedingly difficult. In this paper we will describe the implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study, which is a randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness nested in the state-wide Life! Taking Action on Diabetes program in Victoria, Australia.DiscussionThe Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study sits within an evolving larger scale implementation project, the Life! program. Changes that occurred during the roll-out of that program had a direct impact on the process of conducting this trial. The issues and methods of recovery the study team encountered were conceptualised using an implementation salvage strategies framework. The specific issues the study team came across included continuity of the state funding for Life! program and structural changes to the Life! program which consisted of adjustments to eligibility criteria, referral processes, structure and content, as well as alternative program delivery for different population groups. Staff turnover, recruitment problems, setting and venue concerns, availability of potential participants and participant characteristics were also identified as evaluation roadblocks. Each issue and corresponding salvage strategy is presented.SummaryThe experiences of conducting such a novel trial as the preliminary Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study have been invaluable. The lessons learnt and knowledge gained will inform the future execution of this trial in the coming years. We anticipate that these results will also be beneficial to other researchers conducting similar trials in the public health field. We recommend that researchers openly share their experiences, barriers and challenges when conducting randomised controlled trials and implementation research. We encourage them to describe the factors that may have inhibited or enhanced the desired outcomes so that the academic community can learn and expand the research foundation of implementation salvage.

Recruitment into diabetes prevention programs: what is the impact of errors in self-reported measures of obesity?

BackgroundError in self-reported measures of obesity has been frequently described, but the effect of self-reported error on recruitment into diabetes prevention programs is not well established. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of using self-reported obesity data from the Finnish diabetes risk score (FINDRISC) on recruitment into the Greater Green Triangle Diabetes Prevention Project (GGT DPP).MethodsThe GGT DPP was a structured group-based lifestyle modification program delivered in primary health care settings in South-Eastern Australia. Between 2004–05, 850 FINDRISC forms were collected during recruitment for the GGT DPP. Eligible individuals, at moderate to high risk of developing diabetes, were invited to undertake baseline tests, including anthropometric measurements performed by specially trained nurses. In addition to errors in calculating total risk scores, accuracy of self-reported data (height, weight, waist circumference (WC) and Body Mass Index (BMI)) from FINDRISCs was compared with baseline data, with impact on participation eligibility presented.ResultsOverall, calculation errors impacted on eligibility in 18 cases (2.1%). Of n = 279 GGT DPP participants with measured data, errors (total score calculation, BMI or WC) in self-report were found in n = 90 (32.3%). These errors were equally likely to result in under- or over-reported risk. Under-reporting was more common in those reporting lower risk scores (Spearman-rho = −0.226, p-value < 0.001). However, underestimation resulted in only 6% of individuals at high risk of diabetes being incorrectly categorised as moderate or low risk of diabetes.ConclusionsOverall FINDRISC was found to be an effective tool to screen and recruit participants at moderate to high risk of diabetes, accurately categorising levels of overweight and obesity using self-report data. The results could be generalisable to other diabetes prevention programs using screening tools which include self-reported levels of obesity.

Contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundOrganisations need to systematically identify contributory factors (or causes) which impact on patient safety in order to effectively learn from error. Investigations of error have tended to focus on taking a reactive approach to learning from error, mainly relying on incident-reporting systems. Existing frameworks which aim to identify latent causes of error rely almost exclusively on evidence from non-healthcare settings. In view of this, the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) was developed in the hospital setting. Eighty-five percent of healthcare contacts occur in primary care. As a result, this review will build on the work that produced the YCFF, by examining the empirical evidence that relates to the contributory factors of error within a primary care setting.Methods/designFour electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. The database search will be supplemented by additional search methodologies including citation searching and snowballing strategies which include reviewing reference lists and reviewing relevant journal table of contents, that is, BMJ Quality and Safety. Our search strategy will include search combinations of three key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies conducted in a primary care setting. They will include some description of the factors that contribute to patient safety. One reviewer (SG) will screen all the titles and abstracts, whilst a second reviewer will screen 50% of the abstracts. Two reviewers (SG and AH) will perform study selection, quality assessment and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), patient safety incident type and characteristics, practice characteristics and study outcomes.DiscussionThe review will summarise the literature relating to contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care. The findings from this review will provide an evidence-based contributory factors framework for use in the primary care setting. It will increase understanding of factors that contribute to patient safety incidents and ultimately improve quality of health care.