Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study.

AIM: To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid. SETTING: A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids. PARTICIPANTS: People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms. CONCLUSION: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Behavioural 'nudging' interventions to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): protocol for a 2×2 factorial, before-after, cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids and imaging are considered low-value care for most people with low back pain. Yet around one in three people presenting to the emergency department (ED) will receive imaging, and two in three will receive an opioid. NUDG-ED aims to determine the effectiveness of two different behavioural 'nudge' interventions on low-value care for ED patients with low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUDG-ED is a 2×2 factorial, open-label, before-after, cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial includes 8 ED sites in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be ED clinicians who manage back pain, and patients who are 18 years or over presenting to ED with musculoskeletal back pain. EDs will be randomly assigned to receive (i) patient nudges, (ii) clinician nudges, (iii) both interventions or (iv) no nudge control. The primary outcome will be the proportion of encounters in ED for musculoskeletal back pain where a person received a non-indicated lumbar imaging test, an opioid at discharge or both. We will require 2416 encounters over a 9-month study period (3-month before period and 6-month after period) to detect an absolute difference of 10% in use of low-value care due to either nudge, with 80% power, alpha set at 0.05 and assuming an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.10, and an intraperiod correlation of 0.09. Patient-reported outcome measures will be collected in a subsample of patients (n≥456) 1 week after their initial ED visit. To estimate effects, we will use a multilevel regression model, with a random effect for cluster and patient, a fixed effect indicating the group assignment of each cluster and a fixed effect of time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from Southwestern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/ETH00472). We will disseminate the results of this trial via media, presenting at conferences and scientific publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623001000695.

Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of an Innovative Primary and Secondary Diabetes Clinic in Western Sydney.

Introduction: Western Sydney Diabetes (WSD) established an innovative diabetes service in May 2020, using virtual and in-person care, linking primary care with the diabetes specialist team. This study evaluated the service's feasibility using qualitative and quantitative methods. Method: Evaluation included: 1) thematic analysis of interviews and workshops with patients and health professionals (n = 28); 2) quantitative analysis of records of patients admitted July 2020-June 2021 (n = 110). Results: Key themes related to 1) benefits: convenient location, access to integrated care, advantages of virtual care; 2) challenges: hard for patients to ask questions, technology issues; 3) confidence: shared care decision making, multidisciplinary team; and 4) future directions: additional multidisciplinary services, expanded insulin stabilisation service, promotion.Improvements between baseline and 3 months included 1.3% reduction in HbA1c (p < 0.05). Sulfonylurea dropped by 25% between initial appointment and follow-up, and GLP1RA/SGLT2i use increasing by 30% (p < 0.05). The clinic covered costs using Medicare billings and Nationally Weighted Activity Units. Discussion: The findings suggest this integrated care model was feasible and perceived as beneficial by both patients and providers. The clinic offers a promising model of practice that could be developed further to roll out in other regions for rural delivery of care.

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention). METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years. RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey. SETTING: Australia. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists. METHODS: Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.

New Frontiers in Health Literacy: Using ChatGPT to Simplify Health Information for People in the Community.

BACKGROUND: Most health information does not meet the health literacy needs of our communities. Writing health information in plain language is time-consuming but the release of tools like ChatGPT may make it easier to produce reliable plain language health information. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the capacity for ChatGPT to produce plain language versions of health texts. DESIGN: Observational study of 26 health texts from reputable websites. METHODS: ChatGPT was prompted to 'rewrite the text for people with low literacy'. Researchers captured three revised versions of each original text. MAIN MEASURES: Objective health literacy assessment, including Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), proportion of the text that contains complex language (%), number of instances of passive voice and subjective ratings of key messages retained (%). KEY RESULTS: On average, original texts were written at grade 12.8 (SD = 2.2) and revised to grade 11.0 (SD = 1.2), p < 0.001. Original texts were on average 22.8% complex (SD = 7.5%) compared to 14.4% (SD = 5.6%) in revised texts, p < 0.001. Original texts had on average 4.7 instances (SD = 3.2) of passive text compared to 1.7 (SD = 1.2) in revised texts, p < 0.001. On average 80% of key messages were retained (SD = 15.0). The more complex original texts showed more improvements than less complex original texts. For example, when original texts were ≥ grade 13, revised versions improved by an average 3.3 grades (SD = 2.2), p < 0.001. Simpler original texts (< grade 11) improved by an average 0.5 grades (SD = 1.4), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This study used multiple objective assessments of health literacy to demonstrate that ChatGPT can simplify health information while retaining most key messages. However, the revised texts typically did not meet health literacy targets for grade reading score, and improvements were marginal for texts that were already relatively simple.

Clinical Observation, Management and Function Of low back pain Relief Therapies (COMFORT): A cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient-participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient-participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001505796.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Australia, telephone. SUBJECTS: A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements. METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening). CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Twitch Data in Health Promotion Research: Protocol for a Case Study Exploring COVID-19 Vaccination Views Among Young People.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms have emerged as a useful channel for health promotion communication, offering different channels to reach targeted populations. For example, social media has recently been used to disseminate information about COVID-19 vaccination across various demographics. Traditional modes of health communication such as television, health events, and newsletters may not reach all groups within a community. Health communications for younger generations are increasingly disseminated through social media to reflect key information sources. This paper explores a social media gaming platform as an alternative way to reach young people in health promotion research. OBJECTIVE: This protocol study aimed to pilot-test the potential of Twitch, a live streaming platform initially designed for video gaming, to conduct health promotion research with young people. We used COVID-19 vaccination as a topical case study that was recommended by Australian health authorities at the time of the research. METHODS: The research team worked with a Twitch Account Manager to design and test a case study within the guidelines and ethics protocols required by Twitch, identify suitable streamers to approach and establish a protocol for conducting research on the platform. This involved conducting a poll to initiate discussion about COVID-19 vaccination, monitoring the chat in 3 live Twitch sessions with 2 streamers to pilot the protocol, and briefly analyze Twitch chat logs to observe the range of response types that may be acquired from this methodology. RESULTS: The Twitch streams provided logs and videos on demand that were derived from the live session. These included demographics of viewers, chat logs, and polling results. The results of the poll showed a range of engagement in health promotion for the case study topic: the majority of participants had received their vaccination by the time of the poll; however, there was still a proportion that had not received their vaccination yet or had decided to not be vaccinated. Analysis of the Twitch chat logs demonstrated a range of both positive and negative themes regarding health promotion for the case study topic. This included irrelevant comments, misinformation (compared to health authority information at the time of this study), comedic and conspiracy responses, as well as vaccine status, provaccine comments, and vaccine-hesitant comments. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and tested a protocol for using Twitch data for health promotion research with young people. With live polling, open text discussion between participants and immediate responses to questions, Twitch can be used to collect both quantitative and qualitative research data from demographics that use social media. The platform also presents some challenges when engaging with independent streamers and sensitive health topics. This study provides an initial protocol for future researchers to use and build on. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/48641.

Exploring human papillomavirus vaccination decision making through mother and adolescent dyad interviews.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of our research was to explore how parents and their adolescent children make decisions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, and to inform future interventions that aim to facilitate inclusive decision-making processes. METHOD: Purposive and snowball sampling strategies targeted parents and their adolescent children (ages = 11-13) in a large city in Australia. We conducted separate and joint semistructured interviews in 2013 with six mother-adolescent dyads (50% female adolescents and 50% male). Interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Factors that both facilitate and impede decision making emerged, including: background knowledge, values, historical experiences, parenting style, and opinion weights. DISCUSSION: New interventions, strategies, and tools that are informed by these decision-making factors can be used to aid productive, mutual decision making between parents and adolescents and support adolescent autonomy and self-sufficiency in health decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Robust evidence regarding the benefits and harms of notifying Australian women when routine breast screening identifies that they have dense breasts is needed for informing future mammography population screening practice and policy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychosocial and health services use effects of notifying women participating in population-based breast cancer screening that they have dense breasts; to examine whether the mode of communicating this information about its implications (print, online formats) influences these effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study population comprises women aged 40 years or older who attend BreastScreen Queensland Sunshine Coast services for mammographic screening and are found to have dense breasts (BI-RADS density C or D). The randomised controlled trial includes three arms (952 women each): standard BreastScreen care (no notification of breast density; control arm); notification of dense breasts in screening results letter and print health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 1) or a link or QR code to online video-based health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 2). Baseline demographic data will be obtained from BreastScreen Queensland. Outcomes data will be collected in questionnaires at baseline and eight weeks, twelve months, and 27 months after breast screening. Primary outcomes will be psychological outcomes and health service use; secondary outcomes will be supplemental screening outcomes, cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, knowledge about breast density, future mammographic screening intentions, and acceptability of notification about dense breasts. ETHICS APPROVAL: Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service Ethics Committee (HREC/2023/QGC/89770); Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Research Governance and Development (SSA/2023/QSC/89770). DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS: Findings will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. They will also be reported to BreastScreen Queensland, BreastScreen Australia, Cancer Australia, and other bodies involved in cancer care and screening, including patient and support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000001695p (prospective: 9 January 2023).

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation.

PURPOSE: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. METHODS: Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM. RESULTS: A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR376477. HIGHLIGHTS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Systematic review of health literacy champions: who, what and how?

Health literacy is an important aspect of equitable, safe, and high-quality care. For organizations implementing health literacy initiatives, using 'change champions' appears to be a promising strategy. This systematic review aimed to identify the empirical and conceptual research that exists about health literacy champions. We conducted the systematic literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and PubMed, with additional studies identified by searching references and citations of included studies and reviews of organizational health literacy. Seventeen articles were included in the final review (case studies, n = 9; qualitative research, n = 4; quasi-experimental, n = 2; opinion articles without case studies, n = 2). Using JBI critical appraisal tools, most articles had a high risk of bias. Often champions were not the focus of the article. Champions included staff across frontline, management, and executive levels. Only five studies described training for champions. Key champion activities related to either (i) increasing organizational awareness and commitment to health literacy, or (ii) influencing organizational strategic and operational planning. The most common output was ensuring that the organization's health information materials met health literacy guidelines. Articles recommended engaging multiple champions at varying levels within the organization, including the executive level. Limited funding and resources were key barriers. Two of four articles reported positive impacts of champions on implementation of health literacy initiatives. Overall, few of the articles described health literacy champions in adequate detail. More comprehensive reporting on this implementation strategy and further experimental and process evaluation research are needed to progress this area of research. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022348816).

Process evaluation of the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in Australian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial targeted ED clinicians and evaluated a multifaceted strategy to implement a new model of care. The objective of this study was to investigate attitudes and experiences of ED clinicians as well as barriers and facilitators for implementation of the model of care. DESIGN: A qualitative study. METHODS: The EDs of three urban and one rural hospital in New South Wales, Australia participated in the trial between August and November 2018. A sample of clinicians was invited to participate in qualitative interviews via telephone and face-to-face. The data collected from the interviews were coded and grouped in themes using thematic analysis methods. RESULTS: Non-opioid pain management strategies (i.e., patient education, simple analgesics, and heat wraps) were perceived to be the most helpful strategy for reducing opioid use by ED clinicians. However, time constraints and rotation of junior medical staff were seen as the main barriers for uptake of the model of care. Fear of missing a serious pathology and the clinicians' conviction of a need to provide something for the patient were seen as barriers to reducing lumbar imaging referrals. Other barriers to guideline endorsed care included patient's expectations and characteristics (e.g., older age and symptoms severity). CONCLUSIONS: Improving knowledge of non-opioid pain management strategies was seen as a helpful strategy for reducing opioid use. However, clinicians also raised barriers related to the ED environment, clinicians' behaviour, and cultural aspects, which should be addressed in future implementation efforts.

Women's views about current and future management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS): A mixed-methods study.

Management of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is controversial, with clinical trials currently assessing the safety of active monitoring amidst concern about overtreatment. Little is known about general community views regarding DCIS and its management. We aimed to explore women's understanding and views about low-risk DCIS and current and potential future management options. This mixed-method study involved qualitative focus groups and brief quantitative questionnaires. Participants were screening-aged (50-74 years) women, with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and no personal history of breast cancer/DCIS, recruited from across metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Sessions incorporated an informative presentation interspersed with group discussions which were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Fifty-six women took part in six age-stratified focus groups. Prior awareness of DCIS was limited, however women developed reasonable understanding of DCIS and the relevant issues. Overall, women expressed substantial support for active monitoring being offered as a management approach for low-risk DCIS, and many were interested in participating in a hypothetical clinical trial. Although some women expressed concern that current management may sometimes represent overtreatment, there were mixed views about personally accepting monitoring. Women noted a number of important questions and considerations that would factor into their decision making. Our findings about women's perceptions of active monitoring for DCIS are timely while results of ongoing clinical trials of monitoring are awaited, and may inform clinicians and investigators designing future, similar trials. Exploration of offering well-informed patients the choice of non-surgical management of low-risk DCIS, even outside a clinical trial setting, may be warranted.