Operationalizing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to build and support the lived experience workforce in direct health service provision.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of people with lived experience (LEX) workers in the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services seeks to improve service user engagement and health outcomes and reduce healthcare gaps. Yet, LEX workers report feeling undervalued and having limited influence on service delivery. There is a need for systematic improvements in how LEX workforces are engaged and supported to ensure the LEX workforce can fully contribute to integrated systems of care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to operationalize the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) using a rigorous scoping review methodology and co-creation process, so it could be used by health services seeking to build and strengthen their LEX workforce. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic literature search of four databases was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2022 providing evidence of the inclusion of LEX workers in direct health service provision. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A descriptive-analytical method was used to map current evidence of LEX workers onto the CFIR. Then, co-creation sessions with LEX workers (n = 4) and their counterparts-nonpeer workers (n = 2)-further clarified the structural policies and strategies that allow people with LEX to actively participate in the provision and enhancement of integrated health service delivery. MAIN RESULTS: Essential components underpinning the successful integration of LEX roles included: the capacity to engage in a co-creation process with individuals with LEX before the implementation of the role or intervention; and enhanced representation of LEX across organizational structures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The adapted CFIR for LEX workers (CFIR-LEX) that was developed as a result of this work clarifies contextual components that support the successful integration of LEX roles into the development, design, and delivery of integrated health services. Further work must be done to operationalize the framework in a local context and to better understand the ongoing application of the framework in a health setting. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with LEX were involved in the operationalization of the CFIR, including contributing their expertise to the domain adaptations that were relevant to the LEX workforce.

Identifying Longer-Term Health Events and Outcomes and Health Service Use of Low Birthweight CALD Infants in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one-third of all births in Australia each year are by culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women. CALD women are at an increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes including prematurity and low birthweight. Infants born weighing less than 2500 g are susceptible to increased risk of ill health and morbidities such as cognitive defects including cerebral palsy, and neuro-motor functioning. METHODS: An existing linked administrative dataset, Maternity 1000 was utilized for this study which has identified all children born in Queensland (QLD), Australia, between 1st July 2012 to 30th June 2018 from the QLD Perinatal Data Collection. This has then been linked to the QLD Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection, QLD Hospital Non-Admitted Patient Data Collection, QLD Emergency Department Data Collection, and Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Claims Records between 1 and 2012 to 30th June 2019. RESULTS: Culturally and linguistically diverse infants born with low birthweight had higher mean and standard deviation of all health events and outcomes; potentially preventable hospitalisations, hospital re-admissions, ED presentations without admissions, and development of chronic diseases compared to non-CALD infants born with low birthweight. DISCUSSION: Results from this study highlight the disparities in health service use and health events and outcomes associated with low birthweight infants, between both CALD and Australian born women. This study has responded to the knowledge gap of low birthweight on the Australian economy by identifying that there are significant inequalities in access to health services for CALD women in Australia, as well as increased health events and poor birth outcomes for these infants when compared to those of mothers born in Australia.

Options for improving low birthweight and prematurity birth outcomes of indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse infants: a systematic review of the literature using the social-ecological model.

BACKGROUND: Prematurity and low birthweight are more prevalent among Indigenous and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse infants. METHODS: To conduct a systematic review that used the social-ecological model to identify interventions for reducing low birthweight and prematurity among Indigenous or CALD infants. Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and Medline electronic databases were searched. Studies included those published in English between 2010 and 2021, conducted in high-income countries, and reported quantitative results from clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, case-control studies or cohort studies targeting a reduction in preterm birth or low birthweight among Indigenous or CALD infants. Studies were categorized according to the level of the social-ecological model they addressed. FINDINGS: Nine studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Six of these studies reported interventions targeting the organizational level of the social-ecological model. Three studies targeted the policy, community, and interpersonal levels, respectively. Seven studies presented statistically significant reductions in preterm birth or low birthweight among Indigenous or CALD infants. These interventions targeted the policy (n = 1), community (n = 1), interpersonal (n = 1) and organizational (n = 4) levels of the social-ecological model. INTERPRETATION: Few interventions across high-income countries target the improvement of low birthweight and prematurity birth outcomes among Indigenous or CALD infants. No level of the social-ecological model was found to be more effective than another for improving these outcomes.

Systematic review on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions supporting women during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES: The increased integration of digital health into maternity care-alongside growing use of, and access to, personal digital technology among pregnant women-warrants an investigation of the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions used by women during pregnancy and the methodological quality of the cost-effectiveness studies. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies published in the last ten years (2011-2021) reporting on the costs or cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions used by women during pregnancy. Available data related to program costs, total incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported in 2020 United States Dollars. The quality of cost-effectiveness studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). FINDINGS: Nine articles reporting on eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Direct intervention costs ranged from $7.04 to $86 per woman, total program costs ranged from $241,341 to $331,136 and total incremental costs ranged from -$21.16 to $1.12 million per woman. The following ICERs were reported: $2168 per DALY averted, $203.44 per woman ceasing smoking, and $3475 per QALY gained. The full economic evaluation studies (n = 4) were moderate to high in quality and all reported the mHealth intervention as cost-effective. Other studies (n = 4) were low to moderate in quality and reported low costs or cost savings associated with the implementation of the mHealth intervention. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Preliminary evidence suggests mHealth interventions may be cost-effective and "low-cost" but more evidence is needed to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions regarding positive maternal and child health outcomes and longer-term health service utilisation.

Critiquing the evolution of maternity care preferences research: A systematic mixed studies review.

OBJECTIVE: Whether women's preferences for maternity care are informed remains unclear, suggesting that maternal preferences may not accurately represent what women truly want. The aim of this study was to understand and critique research on women's maternity care preferences published since 2010. DESIGN: Systematic mixed studies review. CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to April 2022. FINDINGS: Thirty-five articles were included. Models of care and mode of birth were the most frequently investigated preference topics. Roughly three-quarters of included studies employed a quantitative design. Few studies assessed women's baseline knowledge regarding the aspects of maternity care investigated, and three provided information to help inform women's maternity care preferences. Over 85% of studies involved women who were either pregnant at the time of investigation or had previously given birth, and 71% employed study designs where women were required to select from pre-determined response options to describe their preferences. Two studies asked women about their preferences in the face of unlimited access and availability to specific maternity care services. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Limited provision of supporting information, the predominant inclusion of women with experience using maternity care services, and limited use of mixed methods may have hindered the collection of accurate information from women about their preferences. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Women's maternity care preferences research since 2010 may only present a limited version of what they want.

Safer Baby Bundle: study protocol for the economic evaluation of a quality improvement initiative to reduce stillbirths.

INTRODUCTION: Stillbirth continues to be a public health concern in high-income countries, and with mixed results from several stillbirth prevention interventions worldwide the need for an effective prevention method is ever present. The Safer Baby Bundle (SBB) proposes five evidence-based care packages shown to reduce stillbirth when implemented individually, and therefore are anticipated to produce significantly better outcomes if grouped together. This protocol describes the planned economic evaluation of the SBB quality improvement initiative in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The implementation of the SBB will occur over three state-based health jurisdictions in Australia-New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, from July 2019 onwards. The intervention is being applied at the state level, with sites opting to participate or not, and no individual woman recruitment. The economic evaluation will be based on a whole-of-population linked administrative dataset, which will include the data of all mothers, and their resultant children, who gave birth between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2023 in these states, covering the preimplementation and postimplementation time period. The primary health outcome for this economic evaluation is late gestation stillbirths, with the secondary outcomes including but not limited to neonatal death, gestation at birth, mode of birth, admission to special care nursery and neonatal intensive care unit, and physical and mental health conditions for mother and child. Costs associated with all healthcare use from birth to 5 years post partum will be included for all women and children. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken using a difference-in-difference analysis approach to compare the primary outcome (late gestation stillbirth) and total costs for women before and after the implementation of the bundle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the SBB project was provided by the Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: HREC/2019/QRBW/47709). Approval for the extraction of data to be used for the economic evaluation was granted by the New South Wales Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 2020/ETH00684/2020.11), Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: EO2020/4/1167), and Public Health Approval (approval number: PHA 20.00684) was also granted. Dissemination will occur via publication in peer reviewed journals, presentation at clinical and policy-focused conferences and meetings, and through the authors' clinical and policy networks.This study will provide evidence around the cost effectiveness of a quality improvement initiative to prevent stillbirth, identifying the impact on health service use during pregnancy and long-term health service use of children.