Search

This commentary aims to describe a case of how meaningful co-design between rural health service leaders and a health service-embedded research unit can identify emerging research priorities and optimise translation.The challenges facing rural health services are unique, and the important role of health service leaders in the research response is increasingly recognised. Poorly-designed research can contribute to research waste through reduced applicability of results to rural communities, and an opportunity exists to increase research co-designed with rural health services through the involvement of research users during study planning.In early 2020, leaders at a rural Victorian health service approached the embedded health service research unit to request research be conducted on an emerging issue: rural staff well-being in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was based on their concern regarding the lack of available COVID-19-specific evidence to inform organisational policy. In collaboration with the rural health service executive, a translation-focused study of staff well-being with nine rural Victorian health services was developed. Key co-design activities of the project included involving research end-users as study investigators and conducting formal stakeholder engagement regarding study design and outcomes.Meaningful co-design of research with health services is a multifaceted process that can assist researchers and end-users alike in identifying and responding to emerging health issues. In the rural setting where there is a vital need for impactful health research, we recommend that researchers should consider employing co-design processes in order to minimise research waste and optimise the translatability of research findings.

Centralized intake [CI] or single-entry models are utilized in health systems to facilitate service access by reducing waiting times. This scoping review aims to consolidate the Literature on CI service models to identify their characteristics and rationales for their use, as well as contexts in which they are used and challenges and benefits in implementing them. The review also aims to offer some lessons learned from the Literature and to make recommendations for its implementation in non-acute mental health services. The findings show that CI is mostly considered when there is increased demand for services and clients are required to navigate multiple services that operate individually. Successful models have meaningfully engaged all stakeholders from the outset and the telephone is the most common mode of intake. Recommendations are made for planning and preparation, for elements of the model, and for setting up the service network. When successfully implemented, CI has been shown to improve access and increase demand for services. However, if CI is not supported by a network of service providers who offer care that is acceptable to clients, the purpose of its implementation could be lost.