Search

Objective: It is widely understood that a key means of improving health systems and patient outcomes is through research – accessing, understanding, generating and applying research evidence-based practice. To promote more targeted and strategic research in Allied Health practice, this study sought to establish the principles, areas and priorities for clinical research as perceived by Allied Health leaders in the South Australian public health system. Methods: The study used a mixed-methods design (full, sequential and equal model). Participants were recruited from the South Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing employment lists for Allied Health senior leaders. Consenting participants attended face-to-face focus groups; after an overview presentation, they discussed the principles for Allied Health research, followed by areas and priorities for research. Summaries of the responses were themed descriptively and circulated electronically so participants could confirm the research areas and ascribe priority ratings, clinical populations and services. Results: A total of 28 people attended the stakeholder forum (5 online); 20 responded to the second-round electronic summary. Nine principles of research action were agreed. Fourteen research areas were identified and prioritised. There was a relatively consistent prioritisation of measuring Allied Health value, Allied Health workforce, hospital avoidance and closing the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples health outcomes – whether the individuals were thinking about their own service or the state as a whole. Conclusions: Allied Health leadership identified key principles and priorities for research to improve service delivery and patient outcomes. These priorities should generate further discussion and interest for novice and experienced researchers and leaders and can be used to inform granting and project plans. What is known about the topic? Allied Health are well equipped to engage in research but have limited capacity. What does this paper add? We have identified key priorities and principles to inform Allied Health research activity. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners, funders and other stakeholders can develop these identified principles and priorities to direct research time and resources for the most impact on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Driver‐trained occupational therapists are advanced practitioners who work with people to help maintain their independence and autonomy through driving. There is a lack of investigation of professional reasoning processes for why interventions are recommended by driver‐trained occupational therapists. This research project sought to explore the reasoning of driver‐trained occupational therapists when they plan, implement, and reflect on driver rehabilitation interventions. Methods: In‐depth semistructured interviews (n = 7) and one focus group (n = 5) were conducted with 12 experienced driver‐trained occupational therapists, comprising a wide range of experience, client populations, and licensing jurisdictions. Data were analysed using a modified template analysis approach. Results: Seven higher order modes that reflect professional reasoning theory and hierarchical models were evident in the work of the driver‐trained occupational therapists, with no new modes of reasoning emerging. Ethical reasoning regarding the balance of safety versus client independence was an overarching shared framework, with therapists mostly using interactive and conditional reasoning in practice. Twenty‐three second‐level themes were identified that exemplify how the reasoning modes operate in practice. Therapists described assessment activity even when solely asked about intervention, indicating the importance of assessment to intervention design. The full hierarchy of reasoning was evident during the rehabilitation phase. Conclusion: These findings elucidate the application of professional reasoning in advanced occupational therapy practices and could support driver‐trained occupational therapists in making driving rehabilitation recommendations if used in reflective practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore what the obstacles are that deter patients from continuing stroke rehabilitation after discharge from hospital in Singapore. Methods: In this qualitative study, individual semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Thirty one stroke patients, who had been discharged from the hospital after inpatient rehabilitation (mean age=66.46 years, mean duration postdischarge= 95.82 days), were interviewed. Results: Five themes were identified as obstacles to post-discharge stroke rehabilitation including: the means to access rehabilitative services; lapse in discharge coordination; family members’ views and actions; discrepancies in expectation; and the perception that rehabilitation is simple. Participants indicated a need for timely and appropriate information, delivered according to their individualised needs. Conclusion: Study findings revealed that the absence of a smooth transition through the continuum of stroke care and not having a common understanding of rehabilitation accounts for the lack of adherence to therapy recommendations. The results suggest that clinicians need to be more aware of their role in providing well-coordinated information about therapy. The study also highlighted the need to review the goal-setting processes that guide the course of rehabilitation. Goals should be more patient-centred to reduce the discrepancies in expectations of rehabilitation. There needs to be a greater involvement of carers in discharge planning to minimise the dissatisfaction in care arrangements and information delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Returning to driving is often a goal for people with acquired disabilities. Vehicle modifications make it possible for people with both acquired and lifelong disabilities to drive yet can be costly. There has been no financial evaluation of vehicle modifications in Australia or internationally. Methods: A social return on investment analysis of vehicle modifications was undertaken. Primary data were collected via qualitative interviews with consumers and other stakeholders (e.g. driver‐trained occupational therapists, rehabilitation physicians, driving instructors, vehicle modifiers) (n = 23). Secondary data were collected from literature searches and used to identify suitable financial proxies and make estimations of the proportion of drivers with vehicle modifications experiencing each outcome. A co‐investment model was adopted to estimate social return on investment and payback period for funder and consumer. Five scenarios were developed to illustrate social return for low‐cost modifications (Scenario 1) through to high‐cost modifications (Scenario 5). Results: Social return on investment ratios was positive for funder and consumer investment in all five scenarios. Social return on investment calculations based on co‐investment ranged from $17.32 for every $1 invested (Scenario 1) to $2.78 for every $1 invested (Scenario 5). Consumers' payback periods were between 5.4 and 7.1 months, and funders between 3.5 weeks and 2 years 8.4 months. Conclusion: Vehicle modifications represent sound investments for both funders and consumers. Given the short payback periods, funders should reconsider age restrictions on vehicles considered suitable for modifications, especially for low‐ to medium‐cost modifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]