Q fever prevention in Australia: general practitioner and stakeholder perspectives on preparedness and the potential of a One Health approach.

OBJECTIVE: To examine stakeholder perspectives on the factors of an effective approach to reduce Q fever risk including disease prevention, and the perceived potential benefits of a One Health framework. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs), veterinarians, government authorities, researchers, and representatives from the farming industry. Transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Six major themes were identified as key factors underpinning an effective approach to Q fever: understanding Q fever burden; effective surveillance; the role of general practitioners and other stakeholders; barriers and enablers of vaccination; an integrated approach; and increased Q fever awareness. Most participants perceived GPs to play a central role in disease detection, notification, treatment and prevention through health promotion and vaccination, despite GPs acknowledging limited awareness of Q fever. Participants suggested leadership is required from the Department of Health (DoH) to foster inter-sectoral communication and collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: A One Health approach holds opportunities for zoonosis prevention. We recommend that medical curricula and professional development be enhanced, zoonosis working group networks strengthened, government-industry partnerships established, and relevant stakeholders included within an integrated program. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Updating medical curricula, GP professional development programs and inter-sectoral collaboration led by health departments may reduce Q fever burden.

Documenting plans for care: advance care directives and the 7-step pathway in the acute care context.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning involves the discussion and documentation of an individual's values and preferences to guide their future healthcare should they lose capacity to make or communicate treatment decisions. Advance care planning can involve the individual's completion of an Advance Care Directive (ACD), a legislated and common-law instrument which may include appointment of a substitute decision-maker and binding refusals of treatment. In South Australia, ACDs intersect in the acute-care context with the Resuscitation Plan 7-Step Pathway (7-SP), an integrated care plan written for and by clinicians, designed to organise and improve patients' end-of-life care through the use of structured documentation. Here, we examine the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) within a hospital setting on the practical integration of ACDs and the 7-SP, exploring the perceived role, function, and value of each as they intersect to guide end-of-life care in an Australian hospital setting. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected via eight focus groups with a total of 74 HCPs (acute care, and oncology specialists; medical intern; general and emergency nurses; social workers) across two hospitals. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: HCPs viewed ACDs as a potentially valuable means of promoting patient autonomy, but as rarely completed and poorly integrated into hospital systems. Conversely, the process and documentation of the 7-SP was perceived as providing clarity about clinicians' responsibilities, and as a well-understood, integrated resource. Participants sometimes exhibited uncertainty around which document takes precedence if both were present. Sometimes, the routinisation of the 7-SP meant it was understood as the 'only way' to determine patient wishes and provide optimal end-of-life care. When this occurs, the perceived authority of ACDs, or of patients' choice not to participate in end-of-life discussions, may be undermined. CONCLUSIONS: The intersection of ACDs and the 7-SP appears problematic within acute care. Clinicians' uncertainty as to whether an ACD or 7-SP takes precedence, and when it should do so, suggests a need for further clarity and training on the roles of these documents in guiding clinical practice, the legislative context within which specific documentation is embedded, and the dynamics associated with collaborative decision-making in end-of-life care.

Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups.

BACKGROUND: Measures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain. METHODS: Deliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Each forum demonstrated stakeholders' capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around 'equity' and 'patient responsibility', culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access). CONCLUSIONS: Deliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder 'self-interest' proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, 'equity' and 'responsibility') over specific, within-group concerns. Our results--from an emotive case study in ART--highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment.

BACKGROUND: Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment. DISCUSSION: Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.

What counts and how to count it: physicians' constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context.

Internationally, there is an increasing focus on quality and sustainability measures oriented to reducing inefficiencies in health provision. The use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for older women represents a case study in this area. This paper analyses the constructions of evidence brought to bear by ART physicians in the context of deliberative stakeholder engagements (held 2010) around options for restricting public subsidy of ART in Australia. Physicians participated in two deliberative engagements during which they were presented with results of a systematic review of ART effectiveness, as well as ethical and cost analyses. These sessions were part of a broader research program of engagements held with policymakers, community members and consumers. Physicians deliberated around the data presented with a view to formulating an informed contribution to policy. The ensuing discussions were transcribed and subject to discourse analysis. Physicians questioned the evidence presented on the grounds of 'currency', 'proximity', 'selectivity' and 'bias'. We outline physicians' accounts of what should count as evidence informing ART policy, and how this evidence should be counted. These accounts reflect implicit decisions around both the inclusion of evidence (selection) and the status it is accorded (evaluation). Our analysis suggests that participatory policy processes do not represent the simple task of assessing the quality/effectiveness of a given technology against self-evident criteria. Rather, these processes involve the negotiation of different orders of evidence (empirical, contextual and anecdotal), indicating a need for higher-level discussion around 'what counts and how to count it' when making disinvestment decisions.

Engaging clinicians in evidence-based disinvestment: role and perceptions of evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine how evidence from systematic review (SR) is perceived and negotiated by expert stakeholders in considering a technology for potential disinvestment. METHODS: An evidence-informed stakeholder engagement examined results from a diagnostic accuracy SR of vitamin B12 and folate tests. Pathologists deliberated around the SR findings to generate an informed contribution to future policy for the funding of B12 and folate tests. Deliberations were transcribed and subject to qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Pathologists did not engage with findings from the SR in depth; rather they sought to contest the terms of the problem driving the review and attempted to reframe it. Pathologists questioned the usefulness of SR outcomes given the variable definitions of B12 deficiency and deferred addressing disinvestment options specifically pertaining to B12 testing. However, folate testing was proffered as a potential disinvestment candidate, based upon pathologists' definition of "appropriate" evidence beyond the bounds of the SR. CONCLUSIONS: The value of SR to informing disinvestment deliberations by expert stakeholders may be a function of timing as well as content. Engagement of stakeholders in co-produced evidence may be required at two levels: (i) Early in the synthesis phase to help shape the SR and harmonize expert views with the available evidence (including gaps); (ii) Collaboration in primary research to fill evidence-gaps thus supporting evidence-based disinvestment. Without this, information asymmetry between clinically engaged experts and decision makers may preclude the collaborative, informed, and technical discussions required to generate productive policy change.