"It's not a one operation fits all": A qualitative study exploring fee setting and participation in price transparency initiatives amongst medical specialists in the Australian private healthcare sector.

The Australian government, through Medicare, defines the type of medical specialist services it covers and subsidizes, but it does not regulate prices. Specialists in private practice can charge more than the fee listed by Medicare depending on what they feel 'the market will bear'. This can sometimes result in high and unexpected out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for patients. To reduce pricing uncertainty and 'bill shock' faced by consumers, the government introduced a price transparency website in December 2019. It is not clear how effective such a website will be and whether specialists and patients will use it. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore factors influencing how specialists set their fees, and their views on and participation in price transparency initiatives. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with surgical specialists. We analysed the data using thematic analysis and responses were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model. We identified several patient, specialist and system-level factors influencing fee setting. Patient-level factors included patient characteristics, circumstance, complexity, and assumptions regarding perceived value of care. Specialist-level factors included perceived experience and skills, ethical considerations, and gendered-behavior. System-level factors included the Australian Medical Association recommended price list, practice costs, and supply and demand factors including perceived competition and practice location. Specialists were opposed to price transparency websites and lacked motivation to participate because of the complexity of fee setting, concerns over unintended consequences, and feelings of frustration they were being singled out. If price transparency websites are to be pursued, specialists' lack of motivation to participate needs to be addressed.

The early impacts of primary HPV cervical screening implementation in Australia on the pathology sector: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program from cytology to a molecular test for human papillomavirus (HPV) (locally referred to as the 'Renewal'), including a longer five-year interval and older age at commencement, significantly impacted all sectors of program delivery. The Renewal had major implications for the roles and requirements of pathology laboratories providing services for the Program. This study aimed to understand the early impacts of the Renewal and its implementation on the pathology sector. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (N = 49) involved in the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study (STORIES), 11-20 months after the program transition. A subset of interviews (N = 24) that discussed the pathology sector were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified: implementation enablers, challenges, missed opportunities, and possible improvements. Participants believed that the decision to transition to primary HPV screening was highly acceptable and evidence-based, but faced challenges due to impacts on laboratory infrastructure, resources, staffing, and finances. These challenges were compounded by unfamiliarity with new information technology (IT) systems and the new National Cancer Screening Register ('Register') not being fully functional by the date of the program transition. The limited availability of self-collection and lack of standardised fields in pathology forms were identified as missed opportunities to improve equity in the Program. To improve implementation processes, participants suggested increased pathology sector involvement in planning was needed, along with more timely and transparent communication from the Government, and clearer clinical management guidelines. CONCLUSION: The transition to primary HPV screening had a significant and multifaceted impact on the Australian pathology sector reflecting the magnitude and complexity of the Renewal. Strategies to support the pathology sector through effective change management, clear, timely, and transparent communication, as well as adequate funding sources will be critical for other countries planning to transition cervical screening programs.

Implementation of Australia's primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening program: The STakeholders Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study.

In this study, we aimed to document stakeholders' experiences of implementing Australia's renewed National Cervical Screening Program. In December 2017, the program changed from 2nd yearly cytology for 20-69 year olds to 5 yearly human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women 25-74 years. We undertook semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including government, program administrators, register staff, clinicians and health care workers, non-government organisations, professional bodies, and pathology laboratories from across Australia between Nov 2018 - Aug 2019. Response rate to emailed invitations was 49/85 (58%). We used Proctor et al's (2011) implementation outcomes framework to guide our questions and thematic analysis. We found that stakeholders were evenly divided over whether implementation was successful. There was strong support for change, but concern over aspects of the implementation. There was some frustration related to the delayed start, timeliness of communication and education, shortcomings in change management, lack of inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in planning and implementation, failure to make self-collection widely available, and delays in the National Cancer Screening Register. Barriers centred around a perceived failure to appreciate the enormity of the change and register build, and consequent failure to resource, project manage and communicate effectively. Facilitators included the good will and dedication of stakeholders, strong evidence base for change and the support of jurisdictions during the delay. We documented substantial implementation challenges, offering learnings for other countries transitioning to HPV screening. Sufficient planning, significant and transparent engagement and communication with stakeholders, and change management are critical.

"Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining": a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. However, conventional RCTs are typically complex, expensive, and have narrow eligibility criteria, which limits generalisability. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of an RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCT is a novel research design, there has been limited research on the feasibility and acceptability of RRCTs from the patients' and trial team's perspectives. This study aims to explore patients', clinicians', and study coordinators' perspectives towards participation in and conduct of oncology RRCTs in Australia. METHODS: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 cancer patients, 15 clinicians, and 7 study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified: (1) enablers and barriers to recruitment and enrolment of patients in RRCTs, (2) experiences of patients participating in RRCTs, and (3) recommendations for the implementation of future RRCTs. For patients, altruism and "trust in the clinician" were key reasons to participate in a RRCT. For clinicians and clinical trial coordinators, the RRCT study design was perceived as "simple and straightforward" but "less exciting" than RCTs. Competition from commercially sponsored RCTs poses challenges for investigator-led RRCTs recruitment, particularly if eligible patient numbers are low. There were limited impacts on patients' treatment experiences and clinicians' clinical workflow given that the RRCTs explored different standards of care. Recommendations to improve the enrolment of patients in RRCTs included generating greater buy-in from clinicians by increasing awareness of RRCTs via education initiatives and broader promotion of the "selling point" of RRCTs and providing monetary compensation to hospitals for enrolling patients. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst patients, clinicians, and study coordinators were generally supportive of RRCTs, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation in oncology were identified. Developing strategies to increase acceptance of the methodology by clinicians will help enhance the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

"So, if she wasn't aware of it, then how would everybody else out there be aware of it?"-Key Stakeholder Perspectives on the Initial Implementation of Self-Collection in Australia's Cervical Screening Program: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program transitioned from 2-yearly cytology-based to 5-yearly human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening, including a vaginal self-collection option. Until July 2022, this option was restricted to under- or never-screened people aged 30 years and older who refused a speculum exam. We investigated the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the initial implementation of the restricted self-collection pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 49 stakeholders as part of the STakeholder Opinions of Renewal Implementation and Experiences Study. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analysed and coded to the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Outcomes. RESULTS: Stakeholders viewed the introduction of self-collection as an exciting opportunity to provide under-screened people with an alternative to a speculum examination. Adoption in clinical practice, however, was impacted by a lack of clear communication and promotion to providers, and the limited number of laboratories accredited to process self-collected samples. Primary care providers tasked with communicating and offering self-collection described confusion about the availability, participant eligibility, pathology processes, and clinical management processes for self-collection. Regulatory delay in developing an agreed protocol to approve laboratory processing of self-collected swabs, and consequently initially having one laboratory nationally accredited to process samples, led to missed opportunities and misinformation regarding the pathway's availability. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the introduction of self-collection was welcomed, clear communication from Government regarding setbacks in implementation and how to overcome these in practice were needed. As Australia moves to a policy of providing everyone eligible for screening the choice of self-collection, wider promotion to providers and eligible people, clarity around pathology processes and the scaling up of test availability, as well as timely education and communication of clinical management practice guidelines, are needed to ensure smoother program delivery in the future. Other countries implementing self-collection policies can learn from the implementation challenges faced by Australia.

An implementation research programme to support an intravenous iron intervention for pregnant women with moderate and severe anaemia in Malawi: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal iron supplementation is critical to maternal and child health; however, access and adherence to oral iron are inconsistent in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Modern intravenous (IV) iron products have become available in high-income clinical settings and provide an opportunity to deliver high doses of iron in a single-short infusion during pregnancy. However, there is limited knowledge of the drivers and barriers for such an intervention to be effectively delivered and upscaled in LMICs. In this study protocol, we describe the implementation research programme to support an IV iron intervention in Malawi for pregnant women with moderate and severe anaemia. METHODS: The implementation research programme has three phases, each guided by implementation science conceptual frameworks. In Phase 1, we will conduct formative research (context assessment of the health system with key informant interviews) to determine how IV iron can be effectively introduced into routine antenatal care. We will use the findings to co-develop potential strategies with end-users and healthcare providers to improve intervention implementation. In Phase 2, we will disseminate the implementation strategies to support the uptake and delivery of the intervention in the study settings. In Phase 3, the intervention will be implemented, and we will conduct formative evaluation (interviews with end-users, healthcare providers, and analysis of health services data) to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and strategies. We will also identify processes and contextual factors that facilitate or impede the delivery and uptake of IV iron. DISCUSSION: In LMICs, modern IV iron products present a novel opportunity to rapidly cure moderate and severe anaemia in pregnancy, thereby improving maternal and child health outcomes. This implementation research programme will provide guidance and recommendations on how best an IV iron intervention for pregnant women with anaemia can be implemented in an LMIC setting like Malawi. We will develop locally relevant and culturally appropriate implementation strategies by engaging with key stakeholders (pregnant women, healthcare providers, and policymakers) and identifying factors likely to facilitate successful implementation. The findings of this research can guide the implementation of an IV iron intervention in Malawi and other LMICs.

Perceptions and experiences of intravenous iron treatment for anaemia in pregnancy in Malawi: a formative qualitative study.

Background: The study objective was to explore opinions, identify experiences, and describe perspectives on the acceptability of intravenous (IV) iron to treat anaemia in pregnancy and identify potential barriers and facilitators of introducing IV iron in the Malawian healthcare system. Methods: We conducted 15 in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions with pregnant women, and seven in-depth interviews with health workers at a community-based health centre in Blantyre and a tertiary hospital in Zomba. Results: Most women who used IV iron treatment during the second trimester of pregnancy reported feeling better and stronger after receiving the intervention. Women perceived that IV iron treatment worked faster than oral iron tablets and increased their haemoglobin count. However, cultural beliefs that IV iron treatment will cause miscarriage and the perception that study procedures involved Satanism and vampirism practices were barriers to acceptability. Health workers found IV iron treatment easy to administer because it is a single-dose treatment, simultaneously reducing the burden for pregnant women taking daily oral iron tablets. However, health workers expressed concerns about the costs and the need to train health workers before the large-scale implementation and integration of IV iron treatment into Malawi's routine care. Conclusions: Despite the perceived concerns and challenges experienced in participating in the first IV iron infusion trial in Malawi, participants' reflections suggest that IV iron infusion is acceptable for treating iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy. Participant advocate groups can offer a peer-to-peer education approach to sensitize and engage community members on the benefits of treatment and dispel concerns when the country contemplates integrating IV iron infusion for treating anaemia in pregnancy in Malawi.

The impact of public performance reporting on cancer elective surgery waiting times: a data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Excessive waiting times for cancer elective surgery are a concern in publicly funded healthcare systems. Several countries including Australia have introduced healthcare reforms involving time-based targets and public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data. However, there is mixed evidence of their benefits. We sought to examine the impact of targets and PPR of cancer elective surgery waiting times on access to breast, bowel and lung cancer elective surgery. METHODS: We analysed routinely-collected linked data on admissions and waiting times for patients aged 15 years or over (n = 199,885) who underwent cancer surgery in a public hospital in Victoria, Australia over a 10-year period. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses to compare waiting times before (2006-07 to 2011-12) and after (2012-13 to 2015-16) the introduction of PPR in meeting these targets. RESULTS: Across all cancer types, urgent patients were all treated within 30 days before and after PPR. Following PPR, there was a slight increase in the mean waiting times across all cancer types and urgency categories. Patients with lung cancer waited on average two and half days longer for treatment and patients with breast cancer waited on average half-a-day less. There was no effect of PPR on waiting times for patients with bowel cancer across urgency categories. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that time-based targets and PPR had minimal impact on surgical waiting times. This may be due to reasonable waiting times prior to PPR, improved efficiency being masked by 20% growth in the population, lack of public knowledge that waiting times are publicly reported, or lack of real-time reporting to drive behavioural change. The use of generic elective surgery recommended waiting time measures for cancer is discussed.

The Impact of Public Performance Reporting on Market Share, Mortality, and Patient Mix Outcomes Associated With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (2000-2016): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Public performance reporting (PPR) of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes aim to improve the quality of care in hospitals, surgeons and to inform consumer choice. Past CABG and PCI studies have showed mixed effects of PPR on quality and selection. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of PPR on market share, mortality, and patient mix outcomes associated with CABG and PCI. METHODS: Six online databases and 8 previous reviews were searched for the period 2000-2016. Data extraction, quality assessment, systematic critical synthesis, and meta-analysis (where possible) were carried out on included studies. RESULTS: In total, 22 relevant articles covering mortality (n=19), patient mix (n=14), and market share (n=6) outcomes were identified. Meta-analyses showed that PPR led to a near but not significant reduction in short-term mortality for both CABG and PCI. PPR on CABG showed a positive effect on market share for hospitals (3 of 6 studies) and low-performing surgeons (2 of 2 studies). Five of 6 PCI studies found that high-risk patients were less likely to be treated in States with PPR. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that PPR reduces mortality rates in CABG/PCI-treated patients. The significance of there being no strong evidence, in the period 2000-2016, should be considered. There is need for both further development of PPR practice and further research into the intended and unintended consequences of PPR.

Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector.

OBJECTIVES: National mandatory public performance reporting (PPR) for Australian public hospitals, including measures of cancer surgery waiting times, was introduced in 2011. PPR is voluntary for private hospitals. The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data is used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer when selecting a hospital for elective surgery and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. DESIGN: A national cross-sectional postal questionnaire. SETTING: Australian private healthcare sector. PARTICIPANTS: Private patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital for elective surgery (n=243) in 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' choice of hospital, use of PPR information and preferred areas of PPR information. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-eight respondents (94%) attended a private hospital. Almost half could choose a hospital. Choice of hospital was not influenced by PPR data (92% unaware) but by their specialist (90%). Respondents considered PPR to be important (71%) but they did not want to see the information, preferring their general practitioners (GPs) to tell them about it (40%). Respondents considered surgery costs (59%), complications (58%) and recovery success rates (57%) to be important areas of information that should be publicly reported. Almost half suggested that quality indicators should be reported at the individual clinician level. Analysis of the open-ended questions identified four themes: (1) decision-making factors; (2) data credibility; (3) unmet information needs and (4) unintended consequences. CONCLUSIONS: PPR of hospital data had no substantial impact on patients' choice of hospital. Nonetheless, many respondents expressed interest in using it in future. To increase PPR awareness and usability, personalised and integrated information on cost and quality of hospitals is required. Dissemination of PPR information via specialists and GPs could assist patients to interpret the data and support decision-making.