ABSTRACT
This study examined how the Australian news media have portrayed public hospital Emergency Departments (EDs) over the last two decades. A systematic review and media frame analysis, searching Factiva and Australia and New Zealand News Stream for digital and print news articles published between January 2000 and January 2020. Eligibility criteria were (1) discussed EDs in public hospitals; (2) the primary focus of the article was the ED; (3) focused on the Australian context; (4) were published by one of the Australian state-based news outlets (e.g., The Sydney Morning Herald, Herald Sun). A pair of reviewers independently screened 242 articles for inclusion according to the pre-established criteria. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion. 126 articles met the inclusion criteria. Pairs of independent reviewers identified frames in 20% of the articles using an inductive approach to develop a framework for coding the remaining articles. News media rely heavily on reporting problems within and with the ED, while also proposing a cause. Praise for EDs was minimal. Opinions were primarily from government spokespeople, professional associations, and doctors. ED performance was often reported as fact, with no reference to the source of the information. Rhetorical framing devices, such as hyperbole and imagery, were used to emphasise dominant themes. The negative bias inherent in news media reporting of EDs could potentially damage public awareness of ED functioning, with implications for the likelihood of the public's accessing ED services. Like in the film Groundhog Day, news media reporting is stuck in a loop reporting the same narrative over and over again.
Subject(s)
Mass Media , Motion Pictures , Australia , Emergency Service, Hospital , New ZealandABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Mental health services are fragmented in Australia leading to a priority being placed on whole-of-community approaches and integration. We describe the LifeSpan suicide prevention intervention developed by the Black Dog Institute that draws upon nine evidence-based community-wide strategies. We examined the suicide prevention Collaborative group at each site. We evaluated how the social capital of the community and service providers changed, and how the brokerage roles of the Collaborative affected integration of effort. METHODS: This was a two phase, explanatory mixed methods study. Participants were LifeSpan Coordinators, The Collaborative and working group members at four LifeSpan sites in New South Wales (three metropolitan/regional, one regional/rural). Quantitative social network data was collected through an online survey and analysed using Gephi software. Qualitative data through focus groups and interviews with Lifespan Coordinators and community stakeholders. RESULTS: The social network survey was administered in three sites and was completed by 83 people. Data gave quantitative evidence of increased engagement across key stakeholders in each region who had not previously been working together. Nominations of other collaborators showed this network extended beyond the formal structures of The Collaborative. LifeSpan Coordinators were empirically identified as key players in the networks. Qualitative data was collected from 53 individuals (18 interviews and five focus groups) from across all sites. Participants identified benefits of this collaborative approach including greater capacity to run activities, better communication between groups, identification of "who's who" locally, improvement in the integration of priorities, services and activities, and personal support for previously isolated members. LifeSpan Coordinators were key to the smooth running of The Collaborative. This may represent a risk to sustainability if they left. The collaboration model that suited metropolitan sites was difficult to sustain in rural sites, but gains were seen in better coordinated postvention efforts. CONCLUSION: LifeSpan Coordinators were noted to be exceptional people who magnified the benefits of collaboration. Geographic proximity was a potent driver of social capital. Initial engagement with local stakeholders was seen as essential but time-consuming work in the implementation phase. Coordinators reported this important work was not always acknowledged as part of their formal role.
