Implementation of a Pilot SMS-Based Crisis Support Service in Australia.

Background: Australia's first short message service (SMS) crisis support service was launched by Lifeline Australia in July 2018. The pilot program was independently evaluated over a 240-day period. Aims: We aimed to examine the experiences of key staff employed in the Lifeline Text pilot and identify the skills and types of support required to deliver a high-quality SMS-based crisis support service. Method: In total, 22 interviews were conducted with 14 Lifeline Text crisis supporters and in-shift supervisors (supervisors) at two time points in September 2018 and March 2019. A modified framework approach was adopted to undertake qualitative data analyses. Results: Delivering crisis support via text was initially challenging as a result of the need to translate skills from telephone crisis support to the SMS platform. This was compounded by the high degree of suicidality of help-seekers and volatility in demand for the service. Limitations: The independent evaluators were not involved in the design of the pilot. Conclusion: Lifeline text is providing an important and necessary service, using a novel mode of delivery in Australia. Maintaining service quality at peak demand, with many distressed and suicidal help-seekers, requires specialized training, experience, and exceptional skills.

Evaluation of Outcomes for Help Seekers Accessing a Pilot SMS-Based Crisis Intervention Service in Australia.

Background: In July 2018, Lifeline Australia launched Australia's first short message service (SMS) crisis support service. Lifeline Text aims to reduce psychological distress and increase coping and social connectedness among help seekers, particularly those who prefer text-based communication. Aims: We aimed to independently evaluate the pilot SMS service over a 240-day period. Method: The service evaluation used operational data, pre and postconversation automated questions, and an online survey to assess outcomes. Results: There were 7,315 contacts during operational hours, of which 5,266 progressed to the queue and 99.2% were answered. Suicide was actively being considered by 1,554 help seekers, and 171 were assessed at imminent risk. Commonly discussed topics were mental health problems, issues relating to the self and identity, and family relationship difficulties. Limitations: This was an evaluation of a pilot service focusing on demand and short-term outcomes. Conclusion: The service succeeded in reaching some under-served groups. On average, help seekers were significantly less distressed, felt more confident in their ability to cope and felt greater connection to others, following the text intervention. The demand for Lifeline Text and the high level of suicidality of help seekers show it is meeting urgent needs in the community.

Evolution of a multilevel framework for health program evaluation.

A well-conceived evaluation framework increases understanding of a program's goals and objectives, facilitates the identification of outcomes and can be used as a planning tool during program development. Herein we describe the origins and development of an evaluation framework that recognises that implementation is influenced by the setting in which it takes place, the individuals involved and the processes by which implementation is accomplished. The framework includes an evaluation hierarchy that focuses on outcomes for consumers, providers and the care delivery system, and is structured according to six domains: program delivery, impact, sustainability, capacity building, generalisability and dissemination. These components of the evaluation framework fit into a matrix structure, and cells within the matrix are supported by relevant evaluation tools. The development of the framework has been influenced by feedback from various stakeholders, existing knowledge of the evaluators and the literature on health promotion and implementation science. Over the years, the framework has matured and is generic enough to be useful in a wide variety of circumstances, yet specific enough to focus data collection, data analysis and the presentation of findings.

'Don't fix what ain't broke': evaluating the effectiveness of a Men's Shed in inner-regional Australia.

Men's Sheds and similar community programmes are known to encourage help-seeking behaviour and thus improve the health and well-being outcomes for the men who attend. This paper investigates this issue through a community needs assessment of a Men's Shed programme in inner-regional Australia. The immediate purpose of this research was to help direct future funding initiatives, and provide recommendations for potential changes and improvements to the programme. A community-level needs assessment is a systematic process used to determine and address gaps or needs between current and desired conditions within a particular community. We sought to explore how particular formats and structures of Men's Sheds programmes contribute to improve social and medical well-being, and whether there are key programme characteristics that could be emulated. In total, 22 surveys and 20 interviews were conducted with the men who participated in the programme. The report finds 95% of men are satisfied with the current running of the programme. While there were areas that have been identified for improvement, most men reported that they are content with the current format and would not like to see major changes to its implementation. The results of this research confirm the known benefits of these types of programmes. This paper provides other community programmes with some insight into the key success factors for running a Men's Shed.

Is it feasible and desirable to collect voluntarily quality and outcome data nationally in palliative oncology care?

Hospice/palliative care is a critical component of cancer care. In Australia, more than 85% of people referred to specialized hospice/palliative care services (SHPCS) have a primary diagnosis of cancer, and 60% of people who die from cancer will be referred to SHPCS. The Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) is an Australian initiative that allows SHPCS to collect nationally agreed-upon measures to better understand quality, safety, and outcomes of care. This article describes data (October 2006 through September 2007) from the first 22 SHPCS, with more than 100 inpatient admissions annually. Data include phase of illness, place of discharge, and, at each transition in place of care, the person's functional status, dependency, and symptom scores. Data are available for 5,395 people for 6,379 admissions. After categorizing by phase of illness and dependency, there remain at the end of each admission 12-fold differences (mean, 26%; range, 4% to 52%) in the percentage of patients who became stable after an unstable phase; seven-fold differences (mean, 22%; range, 6% to 41%) in the percentage of patients with improved symptom scores, five-fold differences (mean, 25%; range, 12% to 64%) in discharge back to the community, four-fold differences (mean, 10%; range, 4% to 16%) in improved function, and three-fold differences in the length of stay (mean, 14 days; range, 6 to 19 days). PCOC shows it is feasible to collect quality national palliative care outcome data voluntarily. Variations in outcomes justify continued enrollment of services. Benchmarking should include all patients whose cancer will cause death and explore observed variations.