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]

Background/aim Home visits, used by occupational therapists to facilitate independence and enhance safety, are effective but costly and time consuming. This research aims to establish the level of agreement in equipment prescribed by occupational therapists using: digital photographs only, and using home visits and digital photographs, respectively. Method Quasi-experimental methodological design conducted in private dwellings in the community in Adelaide with rehabilitation patients and their family members. The equipment recommended by occupational therapists for the toilet and bathroom using similar methods (both digital photographs from previous data; n = 5) was compared with equipment recommended using different methods (conventional home visits vs. digital photographs; n = 14). Results Percent agreement for equipment prescribed between groups, that is digital only and home visit/photography, respectively, were: 72.5/83.9% for toilet; 87.4/88.3% for bathroom and 83/87% for toilet and bathroom. Variability of agreement in the equipment prescribed showed that some items of equipment were incongruently prescribed, by both methods for toilet and bathroom areas. Conclusion Using digital photographs taken by family members, patient information, and an equipment list is a reliable method of making accurate equipment prescriptions in the toilet and bathroom areas. To enhance accuracy, in-depth patient information via face-to-face interview and measurements of physical environment should be included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aim Understanding the differences in preferences of patients and occupational therapists for the way in which rehabilitation services are provided is important. In particular, it is unknown whether new approaches to rehabilitation such as high intensity therapy and virtual reality programs are more or less acceptable than traditional approaches. Methods A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess and compare the acceptability of these new approaches, relative to other characteristics of the rehabilitation program. The study included patients participating in a stroke or medical rehabilitation program (n = 100), occupational therapists (n = 23) and other clinicians (n = 91) working in rehabilitation settings at three hospitals in South Australia. Data were analysed using a conditional (fixed-effects) logistic regression model. Results The model coefficient attached to very high intensity therapy programs (defined as six hours per day) was negative and highly statistically significant for both patients and therapists indicating aversion for this option. In addition, other rehabilitation clinicians and patients were strongly averse to the use of virtual reality programs (as evidenced by the negative and highly statistically significant coefficient attached to this attribute for both groups) relative to occupational therapists. Conclusion The comparison of the views of patients, occupational therapists and other rehabilitation clinicians revealed some differences. All participants (patients and clinicians) showed an inclination for programs that resulted in the best recovery. However, patients expressed stronger preferences than clinicians for traditional therapy approaches. As a group, occupational therapists were most likely to accept approaches such as virtual reality suggesting changes away from traditional delivery methods will be more readily integrated into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]