Search

Complex interventions, such as innovation platforms, pose challenges for evaluators. A variety of methodological approaches are often required to build a more complete and comprehensive understanding of how complex interventions work. In this paper, we outline and critically appraise a methodologically pluralist evaluation of an innovation platform to strengthen primary care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In doing so, we aim to identify lessons learned from the approach taken and add to existing literature on implementing evaluations in complex settings, such as innovation platforms. The pluralist design used four evaluation approaches-developmental evaluation, principles-focused evaluation, network analysis, and framework analysis-with differing strengths and challenges. Taken together, the multiple evaluation approaches yielded a detailed description and nuanced understanding of the formation, functioning and outcomes of the innovation platform that would be difficult to achieve with any single evaluation method. While a methodologically pluralist design may place additional pressure on logistical and analytic resources available, it enables a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that underlie complex interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals vary in their ability to tolerate uncertainty. High intolerance of uncertainty (the tendency to react negatively to uncertain situations) is a known risk factor for mental health problems. In the current study we examined the degree to which intolerance of uncertainty predicted depression and anxiety symptoms and their interrelations across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined these associations across three time points (May 2020 – April 2021) in an international sample of adults (N = 2087, Mean age = 41.13) from three countries (UK, USA, Australia) with varying degrees of COVID-19 risk. We found that individuals with high and moderate levels of intolerance of uncertainty reported reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms over time. However, symptom levels remained significantly elevated compared to individuals with low intolerance of uncertainty. Individuals with low intolerance of uncertainty had low and stable levels of depression and anxiety across the course of the study. Network analyses further revealed that the relationships between depression and anxiety symptoms became stronger over time among individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty and identified that feeling afraid showed the strongest association with intolerance of uncertainty. Our findings are consistent with previous work identifying intolerance of uncertainty as an important risk factor for mental health problems, especially in times marked by actual health, economic and social uncertainty. The results highlight the need to explore ways to foster resilience among individuals who struggle to tolerate uncertainty, as ongoing and future geopolitical, climate and health threats will likely lead to continued exposure to significant uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Representation of specialist international medical graduates (SIMGs) in specific specialties such as surgery can be expected to grow as doctor shortages are predicted in the context of additional care provision for aging populations and limited local supply. Many national medical boards and colleges provide pathways for medical registration and fellowship of SIMGs that may include examinations and short-term training. There is currently very little understanding of how SIMGs are perceived by colleagues and whether their performance is perceived to be comparable to locally trained medical specialists. It is also not known how SIMGs perceive their own capabilities in comparison to local specialists. The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between colleague feedback and self-evaluation in the specialist area of surgery to identify possible methods for enhancing registration and follow-up training within the jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand. Methods: Feedback from 1728 colleagues to 96 SIMG surgeons and 406 colleagues to 25 locally trained Fellow surgeons was collected, resulting in 2134 responses to 121 surgeons in total. Additionally, 98 SIMGs and 25 Fellows provided self-evaluation scores (123 in total). Questionnaire and data reliability were calculated before analysis of variance, principal component analysis and network analysis were performed to identify differences between colleague evaluations and self-evaluations by surgeon type. Results: Colleagues rated SIMGs and Fellows in the 'very good' to 'excellent' range. Fellows received a small but statistically significant higher average score than SIMGs, especially in areas dealing with medical skills and expertise. However, SIMGs received higher scores where there was motivation to demonstrate working well with colleagues. Colleagues rated SIMGs using one dimension and Fellows using three, which can be identified as clinical management skills, inter-personal communication skills and self-management skills. On self-evaluation, both SIMGs and Fellows gave themselves a significant lower average score than their colleagues, with SIMGs giving themselves a statistically significant higher score than Fellows. Conclusions: Colleagues rate SIMGs and Fellows highly. The results of this study indicate that SIMGs tend to self-assess more highly, but according to colleagues do not display the same level of differentiation between clinical management, inter-personal and self-management skills. Further research is required to confirm these provisional findings and possible reasons for lack of differentiation if this exists. Depending on the outcome, possible support mechanisms can be explored that may lead to increased comparable performance with locally trained graduates of Australia and New Zealand in these three dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]