Search

Background: Lone parents and their children experience higher than average levels of adverse health and social outcomes, much of which are explained by high rates of poverty. Many high income countries have attempted to address high poverty rates by introducing employment requirements for lone parents in receipt of welfare benefits. However, there is evidence that employment may not reduce poverty or improve the health of lone parents and their children.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies reporting lone parents' accounts of participation in welfare to work (WtW), to identify explanations and possible mechanisms for the impacts of WtW on health and wellbeing. Twenty one bibliographic databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened references and assessed study quality. Studies from any high income country that met the criteria of focussing on lone parents, mandatory WtW interventions, and health or wellbeing were included. Thematic synthesis was used to investigate analytic themes between studies.Results: Screening of the 4703 identified papers and quality assessment resulted in the inclusion of 16 qualitative studies of WtW in five high income countries, USA, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, covering a variety of welfare regimes. Our synthesis found that WtW requirements often conflicted with child care responsibilities. Available employment was often poorly paid and precarious. Adverse health impacts, such as increased stress, fatigue, and depression were commonly reported, though employment and appropriate training was linked to increased self-worth for some. WtW appeared to influence health through the pathways of conflict and control, analytical themes which emerged during synthesis. WtW reduced control over the nature of employment and care of children. Access to social support allowed some lone parents to manage the conflict associated with employment, and to increase control over their circumstances, with potentially beneficial health impacts.Conclusion: WtW can result in increased conflict and reduced control, which may lead to negative impacts on mental health. Availability of social support may mediate the negative health impacts of WtW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical scholarship has been conceptualised and theorised in the nursing literature for over 30 years but no research has captured nurses' clinicians' views on how it differs or is the same as clinical expertise and clinical leadership. The aim of this study was to determine clinical nurses' understanding of the differences and similarities between the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar. Methods: A descriptive interpretative qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with 18 practising nurses from Australia, Canada and England. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and the text coded for emerging themes. The themes were sorted into categories of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholarship as described by the participants. These themes were then compared and contrasted and the essential elements that characterise the nursing roles of the clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar were identified. Results: Clinical experts were seen as linking knowledge to practice with some displaying clinical leadership and scholarship. Clinical leadership is seen as a positional construct with a management emphasis. For the clinical scholar they linked theory and practice and encouraged research and dissemination of knowledge. Conclusion: There are distinct markers for the roles of clinical expert, clinical leader and clinical scholar. Nurses working in one or more of these roles need to work together to improve patient care. An 'ideal nurse' may be a blending of all three constructs. As nursing is a practice discipline its scholarship should be predominantly based on clinical scholarship. Nurses need to be encouraged to go beyond their roles as clinical leaders and experts to use their position to challenge and change through the propagation of knowledge to their community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to inform a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.Methods: We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.Conclusions: An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]