The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre

PNDA are complex health conditions affecting up to one in five women. The causes of PNDA are not well understood and no proven prevention exists. This study aimed: (1) to understand health professionals' perspectives of the common drivers contributing to PNDA amongst women from regional and rural areas in Australia; (2) to identify clinical practice related to PNDA-associated challenges; (3) to identify and inform areas for intervention. We conducted four online Group Model Building (GMB) workshops with health professionals from the southwest of Victoria, Australia. Informed by local data, participants built a model that progressed from connection circles to causal loop diagrams (CLD) to capture a shared understanding of the key drivers of PNDA rates within the region. The CLD was thematically analysed and common drivers were grouped. The GMB transcripts were thematically analysed inductively identifying emergent themes about PNDA drivers and intervention ideas. The CLD revealed 28 drivers and four key themes that stakeholders perceived to be driving the increasing rates of PNDA. An additional three major themes were identified from the GMB transcripts: (1) Social determinants of women's health; (2) Health system issues; (3) Negative birth experiences. Three key intervention themes were proposed, to improve collaboration between health services and departments, increase training availability, and increase continuity of care. Our findings suggest that dedicated training and pathways for collaboration between large regional and smaller rural services are necessary to address the rising rates of PNDA in the region.

ObjectiveThe scale-up of evidence-based interventions is necessary to reverse high rates of obesity. However, scale-up doesn't occur frequently nor in a timely manner. While it has been estimated that takes 14–17 years for research translation to occur, the time taken to scale-up prevention interventions is largely unknown. This study examined the time taken to scale-up obesity prevention interventions across four scale-up pathways. MethodsA sample of obesity prevention interventions that had been scaled-up or implemented at scale were found using a structured search strategy. Included interventions were mapped against four scale-up pathways and timeframes associated with each stage of the scale-up pathway were identified to determine the time taken to scale-up. ResultsOf the 90 interventions found that were scaled-up to at least a city-wide level, less than half reported a comprehensive research pathway to scale-up and a third did not report any evidence of efficacy or effectiveness prior to scale-up. The time taken to scale-up ranged from 0 to 5 years depending on the pathway taken. Those following a comprehensive pathway took approximately 5 years to scale-up, while interventions that had only one evidence generating step took between 1 and 1.5 years to scale-up. For the remaining interventions, scale-up occurred immediately post-development without evidence generation. ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the scale-up of obesity prevention interventions can occur more quickly than previous estimates of 14–17 years. Our findings support previous research that scale-up of interventions occurs through a variety of pathways and often scale-up occurs in absence of prior evidence of effectiveness.

BackgroundA key role of public health policy-makers and practitioners is to ensure beneficial interventions are implemented effectively enough to yield improvements in public health. The use of evidence to guide public health decision-making to achieve this is recommended. However, few studies have examined the relative value, as reported by policy-makers and practitioners, of different broad research outcomes (that is, measures of cost, acceptability, and effectiveness). To guide the conduct of research and better inform public health policy and practice, this study aimed at describing the research outcomes that Australian policy-makers and practitioners consider important for their decision-making when selecting: (a) public health interventions; (b) strategies to support their implementation; and (c) to assess the differences in research outcome preferences between policy-makers and practitioners.MethodAn online value-weighting survey was conducted with Australian public health policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention. Participants were presented with a list of research outcomes and were asked to select up to five they considered most critical to their decision-making. They then allocated 100 points across these – allocating more points to outcomes perceived as more important. Outcome lists were derived from a review and consolidation of evaluation and outcome frameworks in the fields of public health knowledge translation and implementation. We used descriptive statistics to report relative preferences overall and for policy-makers and practitioners separately.ResultsOf the 186 participants; 90 primarily identified as policy-makers and 96 as public health prevention practitioners. Overall, research outcomes of effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability were identified as the four most important outcomes when considering either interventions or strategies to implement them. Scores were similar for most outcomes between policy-makers and practitioners.ConclusionFor Australian policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention, outcomes related to effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability appear particularly important to their decisions about the interventions they select and the strategies they employ to implement them. The findings suggest researchers should seek to meet these information needs and prioritize the inclusion of such outcomes in their research and dissemination activities. The extent to which these outcomes are critical to informing the decision of policy-makers and practitioners working in other jurisdictions or contexts warrants further investigation.

To document the outcomes of a dedicated Science Communication Community of Practice (CoP) for increasing prevention-focused knowledge translation (KT) and evidence uptake. Type of program: Shared priorities and a united vision to communicate the value of prevention research led to the formation of a dedicated Science Communication CoP within an Australian public health prevention-focused research collaboration. Members of the CoP included science communication experts and early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) with KT-focused roles. The CoP met monthly, with semi-structured meetings led by an experienced science communication professional. A priority of the CoP was to develop resources that could help members and external parties to communicate their findings, especially EMCRs and those working on low-resourced projects. Insights from CoP members were synthesised to document if, and how, the CoP increased communication and KT capacity. CoP members found that participatory dialogue - dialogue that involves sharing perspectives and listening to others in order to develop a shared understanding - helped promote a greater understanding of science communication techniques and led to KT being embedded within projects. The CoP itself resulted in shared narratives and communication outputs that could not have been produced by individual members, primarily due to a lack of dedicated resourcing. Members found that engaging in the CoP increased their use of a range of science communication skills, tactics, and methods (e.g., targeted messaging for policy and practice, use of media and social media, and event management to engage audiences and build trust). The CoP helped build a greater working knowledge of science communication among its members, leading to increased KT activities. Within an environment of low resourcing for science communication, bringing researchers together with science communication experts can help promote the communication of synthesised evidence and unified messaging on 'what works for prevention'.

In this article, we share insights regarding an arts-based research project where carers of people with dementia conveyed their experiences in cloth. Carers face high rates of mental ill health and burnout, while forming a largely undervalued and unrecognised workforce. Through this project, carers’ knowledge was valued and amplified using an innovative methodology – craftivism. During a series of five workshops in 2021, a small group of carers, researchers and artists gathered online to develop an exhibition of craftivist textile works. They evoked the complexity of their makers’ journeys supporting loved ones at the end of life, finding joy and meaning despite grief and isolation. Making and crafting, together, we built community and highlighted the importance of the relationships at the heart of care: holding life’s threads. This article contributes to a growing literature surrounding arts-based methods in qualitative research, advocacy, and community life, while providing another platform to share and celebrate the stories of all those involved in the project.

IntroductionAustralia 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsBetween 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.ConclusionsProviding 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.

As an alternative model of delivery to standard care, telehealth offers a promising solution to health access issues faced by rural and remote communities in Australia and worldwide. However, research typically focuses on its expected benefits and pitfalls, with little to no consideration of its unintended consequences and factors influencing its better utilisation. Drawing on systems thinking and informed by complexity science, we propose using systems archetypes-systems thinking tools - as a magnifying lens to investigate potential telehealth unintended consequences or outcomes. We conceptualise telehealth implementation in rural and remote Australia as a sociotechnical system whereby the interactions between its various agents shape telehealth implementation and, in turn, are shaped by it. When introducing new policies or interventions to any system, these interactions often lead to outcomes other than those initially planned or intended. Although systems archetypes cannot necessarily predict these outcomes, they are valuable for helping anticipate unintended, unforeseen outcomes and facilitating discussions about them to mitigate their negative impact and maximise their benefits. Outcomes are not necessarily adverse; they can also be positive. So, investigating such outcomes will minimise their negative impact and maximise their benefit. Our method was to review existing research and a selection of complexity and systems informed frameworks. Then, we assessed systems archetypes. And how they can be utilised to investigate unintended consequences. A worked example of what an unintended consequence in the implementation of telehealth in rural and remote Australia is presented.

To compare processes of care and clinical outcomes of community-based management of TIAs and minor strokes (TIAMS) between rural and metropolitan Australia. Inception cohort study between 2012 and 2016 with 12-month follow-up after index event (sub-study of INSIST). Hunter and Manning valley regions of New South Wales, within the referral territory of the John Hunter Hospital Acute Neurovascular Clinic (JHHANC). Consecutive patients of 16 participating general practices, presenting with possible TIAMS to either primary or secondary care. Processes of care (referrals, key management processes, time-based metrics) and clinical outcomes. Of 613 participants with possible TIAMS who completed the baseline interview, 298 were adjudicated as having TIAMS (119 from rural, 179 from metropolitan). Mean age was 72.3 years (SD, 10.7) and 127 (43%) were women. Rural participants were more likely to be managed solely by a general practitioner (GP) than metropolitan participants (34% v 20%) and less likely to be referred to a JHHANC specialist (13% v 38%) or have brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [24% v 51%]. Those rural participants who were referred, also waited longer (both p < 0.001). Recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction and death at 12 months were not significantly different between rural and metropolitan participants. Although TIAMS prognosis in rural settings where solely GP care is common is very good, the processes of care in such areas are inferior to metropolitan. This suggests there is further scope to support rural GPs to optimise care of TIAMS patients.

This study identified clusters of chronic disease risks and explored associations between clusters and demographic characteristics and mental health conditions, among people accessing community mental health services. Data from a cross-sectional telephone survey of Australian mental health consumers (n = 567) were analysed. Clusters were identified based on tobacco smoking (53.5%), harmful chronic alcohol consumption (20.1%), harmful acute alcohol consumption (43.5%), inadequate fruit and vegetable intake (66.0%), inadequate physical activity (75.5%), inadequate strength activity (81.8%), and high body mass index (BMI) (67.9%), using latent class analysis. Multinomial logistic regression examined associations between cluster membership and participant characteristics. Three groups were identified: Cluster 1 (19.05%) had < 0.5 probabilities for most risks; Cluster 2 (34.04%) had high probabilities of all risks, particularly tobacco smoking and both types of harmful alcohol consumption; and Cluster 3 (46.91%) had high probabilities of both inadequate physical and strength activity, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake, and high BMI. Compared to Cluster 1 membership, participants with higher education were less likely to be in either Cluster 2 or 3, females or those over 55 were more likely to be in Cluster 3, those with a substance use disorder were more likely to be in Cluster 2, and those with a personality disorder were less likely to be in Cluster 3. The clustering patterns reinforce the importance of addressing multiple chronic disease risks for people with a mental health condition. Preventive care interventions targeting clusters of risks may help reduce the burden of chronic disease among this high-risk population.

BackgroundQuality improvement collaborative projects aim to reduce gaps in clinical care provided in the healthcare system. This study evaluated the experience of key participants from a Quality Improvement Program (QPulse) that focussed on cardiovascular disease assessment and management. The study goal was to identify critical barriers and factors enabling the implementation of a quality improvement framework in Australian general practice.MethodsThis qualitative study examined in-depth semi-structured interviews with nineteen purposively-selected participants of the QPulse project. Interviewees were from General Practices and the local supporting organisation, a Primary Health Network. Interviews were analysed thematically using the Complex Systems Improvement framework, focusing on five domains: strategy, culture, structure, workforce and technology.ResultsDespite reported engagement with QPulse objectives to improve cardiovascular preventive care, implementation barriers associated with this program were considerable for all interviewees. Adoption of the quality improvement process was reliant on designated leadership, aligned practice culture, organised systems for clear communication, tailored education and utilisation of clinical audit and review processes. Rather than practice size and location, practice culture and governance alignment to quality improvement predicted successful implementation. Financial incentives for both general practice and the Primary Health Network were also identified as prerequisites for systematised quality improvement projects in the future, along with individualised support and education for each general practice. Technology was both an enabler and a barrier, and the Primary Health Network was seen as key to assisting the successful utilisation of the available tools.ConclusionsImplementation of Quality Improvement programs remains a potential tool for achieving better health outcomes in General Practice. However, enablers such as financial incentives, individualised education and support provided via a supporting organisation, and IT tools and support are crucial if the full potential of Quality Improvement programs are to be realised in the Australian healthcare setting.Trial registrationACTRN12615000108516, UTN U1111-1163–7995.