ORCID Profile
0000-0002-8035-3150
Current Organisations
University of Oxford
,
University of New South Wales
,
Australian Institute of Company Directors
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
Date: 28-01-2022
DOI: 10.12688/WELLCOMEOPENRES.17553.1
Abstract: Background: The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence of how child health service interventions use their theory of change. A theory of change is a hypothesis of how and why an intervention is intended to bring about change. It can be used as a program design, implementation, and evaluation tool. This scoping review will provide an overview of the evidence base for, and identify the way in which, theories of change in child health service interventions are defined, rationalised, developed, presented, and refined. Methods: The inclusion criteria for this scoping review is any child health service intervention globally, that describes their theory of change or theory of change development process. Relevant exclusions include: logic models or logic frameworks that do not meet this review’s definition of theory of change, systematic reviews, behavioural change interventions that target patient’s behaviour, school-based interventions, and maternal health interventions not related to child health outcomes. This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s manual. Relevant publications will be first searched on selected electronic databases and grey literature. A search strategy will be developed. The search will be limited to articles written in the English language. Results of the search will be curated using Endnote and duplicates removed. Results will be imported to Rayyan. The inclusion criteria will be applied during the process of title and abstract screening, by two independent reviewers and disagreements resolved by a third independent reviewer. Full-texts will have the inclusion criteria applied via the same reviewer process. Data relevant to the research sub-questions will be extracted, analysed, charted and discussed. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review as we will make use of already published data. We aim to publish the findings of our review in a peer-reviewed journal.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S12939-020-01334-W
Abstract: It is well established that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations face considerable health inequities, exacerbated by poorer healthcare quality. Patient experience is recognised as a major contributing factor to healthcare quality and outcomes, therefore, enriched knowledge of the patient experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations is critical to redress health inequities. This review synthesises evidence of the healthcare experiences amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients through a metanarrative synthesis of qualitative literature. A systematic search strategy was developed and applied to six electronic databases between January 2000 and July 2019. Titles and abstracts were screened before applying the inclusion criteria to full text articles. A meta-narrative synthesis was undertaken. Fifty-four publications were identified from four research traditions each with a unique conceptualisation of patient experience. Three themes emerged that demonstrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patient experiences are informed by 1) beliefs about wellbeing and healthcare provision, 2) their level of trust in the healthcare system, and 3) in idual and community health system interactions. The findings highlight a range of aspects of patient experience that were important to participating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the included studies but not captured currently in health system surveys. This review highlights the influence of beliefs about health and wellbeing on the patient experience amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in the Australian health system. Patient experiences were informed by past experience and their trust in the health system. The different factors influencing patient experience and the gravity of their influence must be considered in current approaches to capturing patient experience data collection methods. PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019134765 ).
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 15-09-2020
DOI: 10.1111/JPC.15169
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-02-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S12913-021-06122-Y
Abstract: In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD ( n =197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 02-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ANS.17492
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 25-08-2021
DOI: 10.1111/HEX.13343
Abstract: Patients are increasingly being asked for feedback about their healthcare and treatment, including safety, despite little evidence to support this trend. This review identifies the strategies used to engage patients in safety during direct care, explores who is engaged and determines the mechanisms that impact effectiveness. A systematic review was performed of seven databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Cochrane‐Central, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Medline, PsycINFO) that included research published between 2010 and 2020 focused on patient engagement interventions to increase safety during direct care and reported using PRISMA. All research designs were eligible two reviewers applied criteria independently to determine eligibility and quality. A narrative review and realist synthesis were conducted. Twenty‐six papers reporting on twenty‐seven patient engagement strategies were included and classified as consultation (9), involvement (7) and partnership (11). The definitions of ‘patient engagement’ varied, and we found limited details about participant characteristics or interactions between people utilizing strategies. Collaborative strategy development, a user‐friendly design, proactive messaging and agency sponsorship were identified as mechanisms to improve engagement about safety at the point of direct care. Agency sponsorship of collaboration between staff and patients is essential in the development and implementation of strategies to keep patients safe during direct care. Insufficient details about participant characteristics and patient–provider interactions limit recommendations for practice change. More needs to be learned about how patients are engaged in discussions about safety, particularly minority groups unable to engage with standard information. Review progress was reported to the CanEngage team, including the consumer steering group, to inform project priorities (PROSPERO CRD42020196453).
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Benjamin Jones.