Implementation and prospective evaluation of the Country Heart Attack Prevention model of care to improve attendance and completion of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with cardiovascular diseases living in rural Australia: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite extensive evidence of its benefits and recommendation by guidelines, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) remains highly underused with only 20%-50% of eligible patients participating. We aim to implement and evaluate the Country Heart Attack Prevention (CHAP) model of care to improve CR attendance and completion for rural and remote participants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CHAP will apply the model for large-scale knowledge translation to develop and implement a model of care to CR in rural Australia. Partnering with patients, clinicians and health service managers, we will codevelop new approaches and refine/expand existing ones to address known barriers to CR attendance. CHAP will codesign a web-based CR programme with patients expanding their choices to CR attendance. To increase referral rates, CHAP will promote endorsement of CR among clinicians and develop an electronic system that automatises referrals of in-hospital eligible patients to CR. A business model that includes reimbursement of CR delivered in primary care by Medicare will enable sustainable access to CR. To promote CR quality improvement, professional development interventions and an accreditation programme of CR services and programmes will be developed. To evaluate 12-month CR attendance/completion (primary outcome), clinical and cost-effectiveness (secondary outcomes) between patients exposed (n=1223) and not exposed (n=3669) to CHAP, we will apply a multidesign approach that encompasses a prospective cohort study, a pre-post study and a comprehensive economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Southern Adelaide Clinical Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/20/SAC/78) and by the Department for Health and Wellbeing Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/HRE00270), which approved a waiver of informed consent. Findings and dissemination to patients and clinicians will be through a public website, online educational sessions and scientific publications. Deidentified data will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000222842.

A systematic review of interventions to support the careers of women in academic medicine and other disciplines.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise quantitative evaluations of interventions designed to support the careers of women in academia of any discipline. METHOD: A systematic search of English entries in PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar was conducted in September 2017. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by two authors using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal checklists. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in methods and outcomes; results were synthesised and displayed narratively. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible studies were identified, mostly evaluating programmes in academic medicine departments. The most common interventions were mentoring, education, professional development and/or networking programmes. All programmes took a 'bottom-up' approach in that women were responsible for opting into and devoting time to participation. Study quality was low overall, but all studies reported positive outcomes on at least one indicator. Most often this included improvements in self-rated skills and capabilities, or satisfaction with the programme offered. Results regarding tangible outcomes were mixed; while some studies noted improvements in promotion, retention and remuneration, others did not. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that targeted programmes have the potential to improve some outcomes for women in academia. However, the studies provide limited high-quality evidence to provide information for academic institutions in terms of the best way to improve outcomes for women in academia. The success of an intervention appears to be undermined when it relies on the additional labour of those it is intending to support (ie, 'bottom-up' approaches). As such, academic institutions should consider and evaluate the efficacy of 'top-down' interventions that start with change in practice of higher management.