Private practice dietetics: A scoping review of the literature.

AIM: Private practice is one of the most rapidly growing, but under-researched employment sectors for graduate dietitians in Australia, limiting evidence-based workforce development. This scoping review examines existing international literature to gain an understanding of the current private practice workforce size, distribution, demography and workforce development considerations, including competencies, supply and demand, remuneration and professional development activities. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EMCARE, PsycInfo (Ovid) and grey literature were systematically searched in August 2023 using key search terms to identify studies for inclusion. Articles were included if they related to private practice dietetics and described an aspect of workforce. Original research, government and organisational reports, statements of practice and websites providing governmental or organisational statistics were included. A directed content analysis and qualitative constant comparison technique were used to deductively map intelligence sources against a workforce development framework. A gap analysis was also conducted to provide a focus for future workforce development research. RESULTS: A total of 72 peer-reviewed and grey literature sources were included, with 65% of the studies being Australian-based publications. Private practice dietetics research interest has increased in the last decade. Despite a breadth of published sources, this review found little published data on workforce size, distribution, demography, supply, demand, continued professional development and remuneration, indicating a significant gap in the evidence base. Existing literature focuses on workforce challenges and barriers, the work of private practice dietitians, with limited exploration of competency requirements for graduate private practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on the private practice dietetics workforce is lacking worldwide, which constrains evidenced-based workforce development initiatives. Workforce development research across all workforce aspects is warranted to address current evidence gaps.

Evaluation of a person-centred, nurse-led model of care delivering hepatitis C testing and treatment in priority settings: a mixed-methods evaluation of the Tasmanian Eliminate Hepatitis C Australia Outreach Project, 2020-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Australia has experienced sustained reductions in hepatitis C testing and treatment and may miss its 2030 elimination targets. Addressing gaps in community-based hepatitis C prescribing in priority settings that did not have, or did not prioritise, hepatitis C testing and treatment care pathways is critical. METHODS: The Tasmanian Eliminate Hepatitis C Australia Outreach Project delivered a nurse-led outreach model of care servicing hepatitis C priority populations in the community through the Tasmanian Statewide Sexual Health Service, supported by the Eliminating Hepatitis C Australia partnership. Settings included alcohol and other drug services, needle and syringe programs and mental health services. The project provided clients with clinical care across the hepatitis C cascade of care, including testing, treatment, and post-treatment support and hepatitis C education for staff. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and July 2022, a total of 43 sites were visited by one Clinical Nurse Consultant. There was a total of 695 interactions with clients across 219 days of service delivery by the Clinical Nurse Consultant. A total of 383 clients were tested for hepatitis C (antibody, RNA, or both). A total of 75 clients were diagnosed with hepatitis C RNA, of which 95% (71/75) commenced treatment, 83% (62/75) completed treatment and 52% (39/75) received a negative hepatitis C RNA test at least 12 weeks after treatment completion. CONCLUSIONS: Providing outreach hepatitis C services in community-based services was effective in engaging people living with and at-risk of hepatitis C, in education, testing, and care. Nurse-led, person-centred care was critical to the success of the project. Our evaluation underscores the importance of employing a partnership approach when delivering hepatitis C models of care in community settings, and incorporating workforce education and capacity-building activities when working with non-specialist healthcare professionals.

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles. MAIN RESULTS: We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

The Experiences of Stakeholders Using Social Media as a Tool for Health Service Design and Quality Improvement: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health organisations and stakeholders use social media for a range of functions, including engaging stakeholders in the design and quality improvement (QI) of services. Social media may help overcome some of the limitations of traditional stakeholder engagement methods. This scoping review explores the benefits, risks, barriers and enablers for using social media as a tool for stakeholder engagement in health service design and QI. METHODS: The searches were conducted on 16 August 2022. Inclusion criteria were: studies of any health service stakeholders, in any health setting, where social media was used as a tool for service design or QI. Data was analysed using deductive content analysis. A committee of stakeholders provided input on research questions, data analysis and key findings. RESULTS: 61 studies were included. Benefits included improved organisational communication and relationship building. Risks/limitations included low quality of engagement and harms to users. Limited access and familiarity with social media were frequently reported barriers. Making discussions safe and facilitating access were common enablers. CONCLUSION: The benefits, risks, barriers and enablers identified highlight the complexity of social media as an engagement tool for health service design and QI. Understanding these experiences may help implementers design more effective social media-based engagement activities.

Social Media as a Tool for Consumer Engagement in Hospital Quality Improvement and Service Design: Barriers and Enablers for Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Social media can be used to engage consumers in hospital service design and quality improvement (QI) activities, however its uptake may be limited by a lack of guidance to support implementation. This article presents the perceived barriers and enablers in using social media for consumer engagement derived from an interview study with public hospital stakeholders. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 26 Australian hospital service providers and consumer representatives. Data were analysed using a deductive content analysis method. RESULTS: Data were collected between October 2019 and April 2020. Facebook was the platform most commonly used for consumer engagement activities. Barriers and enablers to social media-based consumer engagement were identified. The barrier themes were (1) fears and concerns; (2) lack of skills and resources for social media engagement; (3) lack of organisational processes and support; and (4) problems with social media platforms and the changing social media landscape. The enabler themes were: (1) hospitals facilitating access and use; (2) making discussions safe; (3) cultivating a social media community; and (4) building on success. CONCLUSION: Using social media to facilitate consumer engagement in hospital service design and QI activities is feasible and acceptable to service providers and consumers. Hospitals and their executives can create a supportive environment for social media-based engagement activities through developing clear governance systems and providing training and support to all users. Consumers need to be involved in co-designing social media-based activities and determining which forms of engagement are accessible and acceptable. For some consumers and service providers, barriers such as a lack of resources and distrust of social media companies might mean that social media-based engagement will be less acceptable for them. Because of this it is important that hospitals provide complementary methods of engagement (eg, face-to-face) alongside social media-based methods.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

The risks and benefits of using social media to engage consumers in service design and quality improvement in Australian public hospitals: findings from an interview study of key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Engaging consumers - patients, families, carers and community members who are current or potential service users - in the planning, design, delivery, and improvement of health services is a requirement of public hospital accreditation in Australia. There is evidence of social media being used for consumer engagement in hospitals internationally, but in Australia this use is uncommon and stakeholders' experiences have not been investigated. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences and beliefs of key Australian public hospital stakeholders around using social media as a consumer engagement tool. This article focuses on the study findings relating to methods, risks, and benefits of social media use. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian public hospital stakeholders in consumer representative, consumer engagement/patient experience, communications or quality improvement roles. Qualitative data were analysed using a deductive content analysis method. An advisory committee of consumer and service provider stakeholders provided input into the design and conduct of this study. RESULTS: Twenty-six Australian public hospital service providers and consumers were interviewed. Participants described social media being used to: recruit consumers for service design and quality improvement activities; as an online space to conduct consultations or co-design; and, to gather feedback and patient experience data. The risks and benefits discussed by interview participants were grouped into five themes: 1) overcoming barriers to engagement, 2) consumer-initiated engagement; 3) breadth vs depth of engagement, 4) organisational transparency vs control and 5) users causing harm. CONCLUSIONS: Social media can be used to facilitate consumer engagement in hospital service design and quality improvement. However, social media alone is unlikely to solve broader issues commonly experienced within health consumer engagement activities, such as tokenistic engagement methods, and lack of clear processes for integrating consumer and patient feedback into quality improvement activities.

Indirect Impacts of COVID-19: A Case Study of Evidence, Advice and Representation From Consumer and Community Members in New South Wales Australia.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect health care systems globally, and there is widespread concern about the indirect impacts of COVID-19. Indirect impacts are caused by missed or delayed health care-not as a direct consequence of COVID-19 infections. This study gathered experiences of, and perspectives on, the indirect impacts of COVID-19 for health consumers, patients, their families and carers, and the broader community in New South Wales, Australia. A series of semi-structured virtual group discussions were conducted with 33 health consumers and community members between August 24 and August 31, 2020. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. The analysis identified 3 main themes: poor health outcomes for individuals; problems with how health care is designed and delivered; and increasing health inequality. This case study provides insight into the indirect impacts of COVID-19. Health systems can draw on the insights learned as a source of experiential evidence to help identify, monitor and respond to the indirect impacts of COVID-19.

The use of social media as a tool for stakeholder engagement in health service design and quality improvement: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health-related social media use is common but few health organisations have embraced its potential for engaging stakeholders in service design and quality improvement (QI). Social media may provide new ways to engage more diverse stakeholders and conduct health design and QI activities. OBJECTIVE: To map how social media is used by health services, providers and consumers to contribute to service design or QI activities. METHODS: The scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. An advisory committee of stakeholders provided guidance throughout the review. Inclusion criteria were studies of any health service stakeholders, in any health setting, where social media was used as a tool for communications which influenced or advocated for changes to health service design or delivery. A descriptive numerical summary of the communication models, user populations and QI activities was created from the included studies, and the findings were further synthesised using deductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: 40 studies were included. User populations included organisations, clinical and non-clinical providers, young people, people with chronic illness/disability and First Nations people. Twitter was the most common platform for design and QI activities. Most activities were conducted using two-way communication models. A typology of social media use is presented, identifying nine major models of use. CONCLUSION: This review identifies the ways in which social media is being used as a tool to engage stakeholders in health service design and QI, with different models of use appropriate for different activities, user populations and stages of the QI cycle.

Assessing the information quality and usability of My Health Record within a health literacy framework: What's changed since 2016?

BACKGROUND: This study examined the health literacy demands of My Health Record (MyHR) in the context of preparing for a government-announced opt-out system by repeating two studies of health information and usability conducted in 2016. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Australia's MyHR meets the information and usability needs of people at risk of low health literacy and changes since 2016. METHOD: Content analysis: Informed by the 2016 methods and findings, measures of information quality, themes and target audiences were recorded and reported for each online consumer-facing health information resource. Heuristic evaluation: An evaluation of the MyHR and supporting information website was conducted using a predetermined checklist of usability criteria. A list of usability violations for both websites was identified. RESULTS: Total number of resources grew from 80 in 2016 to 233 in 2018. There was little change since 2016 to average readability levels, target audiences, presentation style, links between resources and usability of MyHR. Compared to 2016, this study demonstrated increases in resources from non-government organisations; video resources; translated resources; and resources with themes of privacy, security and post-registration use. CONCLUSION: This study identified some improvements in information quality since 2016, but gaps remain in information quality and usability which may negatively impact the ability for people with low health literacy to access and use MyHR. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a framework for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the suitability of MyHR for people at risk of low health literacy.

Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.

A content analysis of the consumer-facing online information about My Health Record: Implications for increasing knowledge and awareness to facilitate uptake and use.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy, low levels of positive belief and privacy and security concerns have been identified as a significant barrier to personal electronic health record uptake and use. An important tool for overcoming these barriers is the consumer-facing information which accompanies the system. My Health Record (MyHR) is the Australian national e-health record system, for which a large suite of online resources exists to facilitate consumer registration and use. This study uses a number of different measures of health resource quality to assess the MyHR online consumer-facing information and identify any gaps or areas for improvement. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality and content of the online consumer-facing resources which support the uptake and use of MyHR. METHOD: Australian information resources aimed at healthcare consumers about the MyHR were included in this study. A comprehensive search using Internet search engines was conducted to locate all online consumer-facing resources about MyHR from both government and non-government sources. Readability (measured by Flesch-Kincaid grade level), year of publication/review, publishing organisation type, presentation style, linked websites, target audience, and themes were identified as important measures of health information quality, and these were recorded and reported on for each resource. RESULTS: Eighty resources met the inclusion criteria. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 11.8. Most resources were created by Australian government sources ( n = 55), and the most common target audience was the general public ( n = 65). Registration ( n = 51), privacy/security ( n = 49), and benefits of use ( n = 46) were the most common resource themes. CONCLUSION: The authors identified a number of gaps and areas for improvement in the provision of consumer-facing information about MyHR. Readability is too high for the general Australian population, and there are few translated resources, which means that the information provided does not cater to people with low literacy levels, communication disability, and/or difficulties in understanding written English. The target audiences for resources do not reflect priority groups that were identified during the MyHR development processes. There are also gaps in information provision about how consumers can use MyHR as a tool to meaningfully engage with health professionals and services to support their own person-centred care.

The E-health Literacy Demands of Australia's My Health Record: A Heuristic Evaluation of Usability.

Background: My Health Record is Australia's electronic personal health record system, which was introduced in July 2012. As of August 2017, approximately 21 percent of Australia's total population was registered to use My Health Record. Internationally, usability issues have been shown to negatively influence the uptake and use of electronic health record systems, and this scenario may particularly affect people who have low e-health literacy. It is likely that usability issues are negatively affecting the uptake and use of My Health Record in Australia. Objective: To identify potential e-health literacy-related usability issues within My Health Record through a heuristic evaluation method. Methods: Between September 14 and October 12, 2016, three of the authors conducted a heuristic evaluation of the two consumer-facing components of My Health Record-the information website and the electronic health record itself. These two components were evaluated against two sets of heuristics-the Health Literacy Online checklist and the Monkman Heuristics. The Health Literacy Online checklist and Monkman Heuristics are evidence-based checklists of web design elements with a focus on design for audiences with low health literacy. During this heuristic evaluation, the investigators individually navigated through the consumer-facing components of My Health Record, recording instances where the My Health Record did not conform to the checklist criteria. After the individual evaluations were completed, the investigators conferred and aggregated their results. From this process, a list of usability violations was constructed. Results: When evaluated against the Health Literacy Online Checklist, the information website demonstrated violations in 12 of 35 criteria, and the electronic health record demonstrated violations in 16 of 35 criteria. When evaluated against the Monkman Heuristics, the information website demonstrated violations in 7 of 11 criteria, and the electronic health record demonstrated violations in 9 of 11 criteria. The identified violations included usability issues with the reading levels used within My Health Record, the graphic design elements, the layout of web pages, and a lack of images and audiovisual tools to support learning. Other important usability issues included a lack of translated resources, difficulty using accessibility tools, and complexity of the registration processes. Conclusion: My Health Record is an important piece of technology that has the potential to facilitate better communication between consumers and their health providers. However, this heuristic evaluation demonstrated that many usability-related elements of My Health Record cater poorly to users at risk of having low e-health literacy. Usability issues have been identified as an important barrier to use of personal health records internationally, and the findings of this heuristic evaluation demonstrate that usability issues may be substantial barriers to the uptake and use of My Health Record.

Harnessing and supporting consumer involvement in the development and implementation of Models of Care for musculoskeletal health.

Consumer involvement in the design and delivery of their healthcare is an integral strategy to ensure that health services and systems meet consumers' needs. This is also true for the design and delivery of Models of Care. This chapter presents the identified healthcare needs of people with musculoskeletal conditions and focuses on the current systematic review evidence for consumer involvement interventions in musculoskeletal Models of Care across the micro, meso and macro levels of healthcare. This chapter also presents three case studies of consumer involvement in different aspects of healthcare, offers a series of practice points to help translate the systematic review evidence into practice, and also provides direction to available resources, which support the implementation of consumer involvement within Models of Care.

Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmaco-vigilance.

In the last 5 years, regulatory agencies and drug monitoring centres have been developing computerised data-mining methods to better identify reporting relationships in spontaneous reporting databases that could signal possible adverse drug reactions. At present, there are no guidelines or standards for the use of these methods in routine pharmaco-vigilance. In 2003, a group of statisticians, pharmaco-epidemiologists and pharmaco-vigilance professionals from the pharmaceutical industry and the US FDA formed the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America-FDA Collaborative Working Group on Safety Evaluation Tools to review best practices for the use of these methods.In this paper, we provide an overview of: (i) the statistical and operational attributes of several currently used methods and their strengths and limitations; (ii) information about the characteristics of various postmarketing safety databases with which these tools can be deployed; (iii) analytical considerations for using safety data-mining methods and interpreting the results; and (iv) points to consider in integration of safety data mining with traditional pharmaco-vigilance methods. Perspectives from both the FDA and the industry are provided. Data mining is a potentially useful adjunct to traditional pharmaco-vigilance methods. The results of data mining should be viewed as hypothesis generating and should be evaluated in the context of other relevant data. The availability of a publicly accessible global safety database, which is updated on a frequent basis, would further enhance detection and communication about safety issues.

Data mining in pharmacovigilance: the need for a balanced perspective.

Data mining is receiving considerable attention as a tool for pharmacovigilance and is generating many perspectives on its uses. This paper presents four concepts that have appeared in various professional venues and represent potential sources of misunderstanding and/or entail extended discussions: (i) data mining algorithms are unvalidated; (ii) data mining algorithms allow data miners to objectively screen spontaneous report data; (iii) mathematically more complex Bayesian algorithms are superior to frequentist algorithms; and (iv) data mining algorithms are not just for hypothesis generation. Key points for a balanced perspective are that: (i) validation exercises have been done but lack a gold standard for comparison and are complicated by numerous nuances and pitfalls in the deployment of data mining algorithms. Their performance is likely to be highly situation dependent; (ii) the subjective nature of data mining is often underappreciated; (iii) simpler data mining models can be supplemented with 'clinical shrinkage', preserving sensitivity; and (iv) applications of data mining beyond hypothesis generation are risky, given the limitations of the data. These extended applications tend to 'creep', not pounce, into the public domain, leading to potential overconfidence in their results. Most importantly, in the enthusiasm generated by the promise of data mining tools, users must keep in mind the limitations of the data and the importance of clinical judgment and context, regardless of statistical arithmetic. In conclusion, we agree that contemporary data mining algorithms are promising additions to the pharmacovigilance toolkit, but the level of verification required should be commensurate with the nature and extent of the claimed applications.