Effectiveness of tailored COVID-19 messages for vulnerable Australians: A study protocol.

Multiple approaches can be used to communicate public health messages through mass media. It is unclear which approaches are superior for meeting the needs of the general community along with vulnerable population subgroups. To compare different public health strategy communication approaches for influencing the COVID-safe behavioural intentions of both community and vulnerable population subgroups. This study will conduct three concurrent 'helix' randomised controlled trials with Latin square sequencing and factorial intervention allocation to assess the effectiveness of different communication strategies amongst the Australian general community and six subgroups that are considered vulnerable to contracting, transmitting or experiencing severe consequences of COVID-19 infection. Communication approaches being compared include: the format of communication (written versus video), who is providing information (general practitioner, politician, community-representative), what is said and how it is delivered (direct information provision versus conversational approach) and the visual content of video messaging (animation versus 'talking head'). Recruited participants will be randomly allocated to receive a specific combination of health messaging strategies using six different COVID-19 context areas. Outcomes will be assessed in a survey using behaviour intention questions, and questions surrounding level of agreement with feeling represented in the health messaging strategy. These trials will use a unique research approach to provide an experimental evidence base to help guide development of impactful and inclusive COVID-19 and related public health messaging. All three trials are registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Trial 1: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 1, vulnerable subgroup populations (ACTRN12622000606785). Trial 2: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 2, community group (ACTRN12622000605796). Trial 3: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 3, What communication strategy is most effective for both vulnerable and community group populations? (ACTRN12622000617763).

Australian public health COVID-19 messaging is missing its mark in some vulnerable communities and people who reject COVID-19 safety advice.

Background: There are groups in our community who may be more vulnerable to contracting, transmitting, or experiencing negative health impacts of COVID-19 than the general community. They may also have greater difficulty accessing, accepting, and acting upon COVID-19 public health information. Our aim was to understand if vulnerable communities and those who express "COVID-risk" behavioural intentions seek and respond differently to COVID-19 public health information. Methods: This observational, cross-sectional study recruited adults aged over 18 years from the Australian general community and six community groups (people with disabilities and their caregivers, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, aged care workers, street-based sex workers, refugees and asylum seekers, and the deaf and hard of hearing). We investigated attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 public health messages. We identified factors associated with the respondent's perception of the ease of finding information and understanding it, and its relevance to them. We also examined latent classes that were developed based on attitudes to public health measures and vulnerable group categories, along with demographic variables. Results: We received 1444 responses (n = 1121 general community; n ≥50 for each vulnerable group). The vulnerable groups examined found COVID-19 public health messages as easy, if not easier, to find and understand than the general community. Four latent classes were identified: COVID-safe mask wearers (10% of sample), COVID-safe test takers (56%), COVID-risk isolators (19%) and COVID-risk visitors (15%). The COVID-risk classes (34% of sample) were less likely to consider COVID-19 information easy to find, understandable, and relevant. Conclusions: Additional public health messaging strategies may be needed for targeting people with "COVID-risk" beliefs and attitudes who appear across the community (general and vulnerable groups) rather than just targeting specific cultural or other groupings that we think may be vulnerable. COVID-risk classes identified through this study were not defined by demographic characteristics or cultural groupings, but were spread across vulnerable communities and the general community. Different approaches for tailoring and delivery of specific public health information for these groups are needed.

Variation in inpatient allied health service provision in Australian and New Zealand hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the variability of allied health services on weekends, relative to weekdays, throughout Australian and New Zealand hospitals. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional observational study embedded within a cluster randomised control trial. Allied health managers provided administrative data relating to allied health service events. RESULTS: In one month, there were a total of 243 549 allied health service events recorded from 91 sampled hospitals. The mean difference between weekday and weekend allied health service events (daily, per ward) for physiotherapy was 6.52 (95% CI 5.65 to 7.40), acute wards 12.03 (95% CI 10.25 to 13.82) and for metropolitan hospitals 14.47 (95% CI 12.22 to 16.73), revealing more allied health service events of longer duration on weekdays compared to weekends. CONCLUSIONS: This research is the first of its kind to describe variation in allied health service provision and potential research to practice gaps across weekday and weekend days in various inpatient settings.

Effectiveness of knowledge brokering and recommendation dissemination for influencing healthcare resource allocation decisions: A cluster randomised controlled implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a key focus of healthcare improvements to reduce unwarranted variation. Dissemination of evidence-based recommendations and knowledge brokering have emerged as potential strategies to achieve evidence implementation by influencing resource allocation decisions. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these two research implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-informed healthcare management decisions for the provision of inpatient weekend allied health services. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This multicentre, single-blinded (data collection and analysis), three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation was conducted in Australian and New Zealand hospitals between February 2018 and January 2020. Clustering and randomisation took place at the organisation level where weekend allied health staffing decisions were made (e.g., network of hospitals or single hospital). Hospital wards were nested within these decision-making structures. Three conditions were compared over a 12-month period: (1) usual practice waitlist control; (2) dissemination of written evidence-based practice recommendations; and (3) access to a webinar-based knowledge broker in addition to the recommendations. The primary outcome was the alignment of weekend allied health provision with practice recommendations at the cluster and ward levels, addressing the adoption, penetration, and fidelity to the recommendations. The secondary outcome was mean hospital length of stay at the ward level. Outcomes were collected at baseline and 12 months later. A total of 45 clusters (n = 833 wards) were randomised to either control (n = 15), recommendation (n = 16), or knowledge broker (n = 14) conditions. Four (9%) did not provide follow-up data, and no adverse events were recorded. No significant effect was found with either implementation strategy for the primary outcome at the cluster level (recommendation versus control ß 18.11 [95% CI -8,721.81 to 8,758.02] p = 0.997; knowledge broker versus control ß 1.24 [95% CI -6,992.60 to 6,995.07] p = 1.000; recommendation versus knowledge broker ß -9.12 [95% CI -3,878.39 to 3,860.16] p = 0.996) or ward level (recommendation versus control ß 0.01 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.75] p = 0.983; knowledge broker versus control ß -0.12 [95% CI -0.54 to 0.30] p = 0.581; recommendation versus knowledge broker ß -0.19 [-1.04 to 0.65] p = 0.651). There was no significant effect between strategies for the secondary outcome at ward level (recommendation versus control ß 2.19 [95% CI -1.36 to 5.74] p = 0.219; knowledge broker versus control ß -0.55 [95% CI -1.16 to 0.06] p = 0.075; recommendation versus knowledge broker ß -3.75 [95% CI -8.33 to 0.82] p = 0.102). None of the control or knowledge broker clusters transitioned to partial or full alignment with the recommendations. Three (20%) of the clusters who only received the written recommendations transitioned from nonalignment to partial alignment. Limitations include underpowering at the cluster level sample due to the grouping of multiple geographically distinct hospitals to avoid contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to a lack of power at the cluster level, this trial was unable to identify a difference between the knowledge broker strategy and dissemination of recommendations compared with usual practice for the promotion of evidence-informed resource allocation to inpatient weekend allied health services. Future research is needed to determine the interactions between different implementation strategies and healthcare contexts when translating evidence into healthcare practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000029291.

What is the prevalence of frequent attendance to emergency departments and what is the impact on emergency department utilisation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients who frequently attend to emergency departments are a varying group and have complex health care needs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of patients who have frequent attendance to emergency departments. A systematic review was performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. A database search was conducted, and studies were included in the final review if they analysed a population of frequent attendance. Meta-analysis was performed only on population-based studies to estimate prevalence. The search yielded 2922 nonduplicate publications, of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis. The most common definition used for frequent attendance was greater than three presentations a year. The proportion of people who frequently attended as a percentage of the total study population ranged from 0.01 to 20.9%, with emergency department presentations from frequent attenders ranging from 0.2 to 34%. When limiting the definition of frequent attendance to greater than three visits in a 12-month period, people who frequently attended contributed between 3 and 10% [pooled estimate 6%; CI 4-7%] of emergency department presentations and between 12 and 34% [pooled estimate 21%; CI 15-27%] of total emergency department presentations. Meta-analysis found substantial heterogeneity between estimates [I2 > 50%]. The prevalence of frequent attendance compared to the total population of patients seeking emergency care was small, but the impact on emergency department utilisation is significant. Early identification of people attending for frequent care at an emergency department provides the opportunity to implement alternative models of care.

'There is a very distinct need for education' among people with rotator cuff tendinopathy: An exploration of health professionals' attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend non-surgical care in the management of rotator cuff tendinopathy prior to considering imaging or surgery. However, this requires effective education to promote adherence to treatment. OBJECTIVES: To explore expert shoulder clinician's experiences with managing rotator cuff tendinopathy including practice beliefs towards providing education. DESIGN: An in-depth qualitative study. METHOD: We conducted interviews (n = 8) with an international sample of expert shoulder clinician-researchers. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: (1) The need for early, focused education: "Some beliefs can be detrimental to rehabilitation options", (2) Developing therapeutic alliance: "If a patients trust you then you are generally going to get much better results" and (3) What is required moving forward in current day RT management: "Maybe we can get better." CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of education to alleviate potential barriers to effective conservative care (including exercise) and self-management for rotator cuff tendinopathy. We also identified actionable ways to promote a collaborative therapeutic alliance however, this hinges on sufficient clinical time to educate patients adequately, which may be a barrier in busy clinical settings. Further, there is need for targeted education to facilitate development of clinical skills required to implement effective patient education strategies.

Chronic Heart Failure and Exercise Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify the effect of specific exercise parameters on physical function and quality of life (QOL) in people with chronic heart failure living in the community. DATA SOURCES: A total of 5 electronic databases were searched for relevant studies published after 1994. STUDY SELECTION: The screening process was completed by 2 independent researchers, with a third independent reviewer for conflict resolution. Studies were selected if they included only chronic hHart failure participants, and the sole intervention was a structured exercise training program in an outpatient or community setting. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent researchers completed the data extraction and qualiy assessment. Quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scales. DATA SYNTHESIS: In total, 40 articles (n=5411) were included in the review for meta-analysis and meta-regression, including 27 randomized control trials and 13 cohort studies. Exercise was shown to have a positive effect on QOL outcomes (standardized mean difference 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.56) with the most commonly used measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, showing a clinically significant change of 8.5 points. Physical function was improved postexercise intervention in the 23 included studies (standardized mean difference 0.89; 95% CI, 0.40-1.38), with a clinically significant change of 49.8 m seen in studies using the 6-minute walk test (95% CI, 26.52-73.13). These improvements were independent of study design, study quality, participant demographics, disease severity, and exercise prescription variables. CONCLUSION: Exercise significantly improves QOL and physical function. Current evidence suggests that engagement with exercise is a more important factor in achieving improvement than how the exercise is performed. Future research should aim to identify and address barriers to engagement in exercise rehabilitation in this population.