Christine Jorm

Purpose: COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.Design/methodology/approach: A virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.Findings: We engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.Research limitations/implications: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.Practical implications: A modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.Social implications: Australia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps.Originality/value: Setting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.

We examined whether medical students' opinions on the acceptability of a behaviour were influenced by previously encountering a similar professionally challenging situation, assessed the magnitude of effect of 'experience' compared to other demographic factors which influence medical students' opinions, and evaluated whether opinions regarding some situations/behaviours were more susceptible to 'experience' bias? Confidential, on-line survey for medical students distributed to Australian and New Zealand (AUS/NZ) medical schools. Students submitted de-identified demographic information, provided opinions on the acceptability of a wide range of student behaviours in professionally challenging situations, and whether they had encountered similar situations. 3171 students participated from all 21 Aus/NZ medical schools (16% of registered students). Medical students reported encountering many of the professionally challenging situations, with varying opinions on what was acceptable behaviour. The most significant factor influencing acceptability towards a behaviour was whether the student reported encountering a similar situation. The professional dilemmas most significantly influenced by previous experience typically related to behaviours that students could witness in clinical environments, and often involved breaches of trust. Our results demonstrate the relationship between experience and medical students' opinions on professional behaviour- the 'Schweitzer effect'. When students encounter poor examples of professional behaviour, especially concerning trust breaches, it significantly influences their perception of the behaviour. These results highlight the importance of placing students in healthcare settings with positive professional role modelling/work cultures.

This study examines demographic factors which may influence opinions concerning medical students’ self-care and substance use behaviors as a means of providing insights into how future doctors view these issues compared to Australian doctors and members of the public. We conducted national, multicenter, prospective, on-line cross-sectional surveys using hypothetical scenarios to three cohorts- Australian medical students, medical doctors, and the public. Participants’ responses were compared for the different contextual variables within the scenarios and the participants’ demographic characteristics. In total 2602 medical students, 809 doctors and 503 members of the public participated. Compared with doctors and the public, medical students were least tolerant of alcohol intoxication, and most tolerant of using stimulants to assist with study, and cannabis for anxiety. Doctor respondents more often aligned with the public’s opinions on the acceptability of the medical students’ behaviors. Although opinions are not equivalent to behaviour, Australian students’ views on the acceptability for cannabis to help manage anxiety, and inappropriate use of prescription-only drugs are concerning; these future doctors will be responsible for prescribing drugs and managing patients with substance abuse problems. However, if current Australian medical student’s opinions on alcohol misuse persist, one of the commonest substance addictions amongst doctors may decrease in future.

This study examines demographic factors which may influence opinions concerning medical students’ self-care and substance use behaviors as a means of providing insights into how future doctors view these issues compared to Australian doctors and members of the public. We conducted national, multicenter, prospective, on-line cross-sectional surveys using hypothetical scenarios to three cohorts- Australian medical students, medical doctors, and the public. Participants’ responses were compared for the different contextual variables within the scenarios and the participants’ demographic characteristics. In total 2,602 medical students, 809 doctors and 503 members of the public participated. Compared with doctors and the public, medical students were least tolerant of alcohol intoxication, and most tolerant of using stimulants to assist with study, and cannabis for anxiety. Doctor respondents more often aligned with the public’s opinions on the acceptability of the medical students’ behaviors. Although opinions are not equivalent to behaviour, Australian students’ views on the acceptability for cannabis to help manage anxiety, and inappropriate use of prescription-only drugs are concerning; these future doctors will be responsible for prescribing drugs and managing patients with substance abuse problems. However, if current Australian medical student’s opinions on alcohol misuse persist, one of the commonest substance addictions amongst doctors may decrease in future.

Health organisations are increasingly implementing ‘embedded researcher’ models to translate research into practice. This paper examines the impact of an embedded researcher model known as the embedded Economist (eE) Program that was implemented in an Australian Primary Health Network (PHN) located in regional New South Wales, Australia. The site, participants, program aims and design are described. Insights into the facilitators, challenges and barriers to the integration of economic evaluation perspectives into the work of the PHN are provided. The eE Program consisted of embedding a lead health economist on site, supported by offsite economists, part-time, for fifteen weeks to collaborate with PHN staff. Evaluation of the eE at the PHN included qualitative data collection via semi-structured interviews (N= 34), observations (N=8) and a field diary kept by the embedded economists. A thematic analysis was undertaken through the triangulation of this data. The eE Program successfully met its aims of increasing PHN staff awareness of the value of economic evaluation principles in decision-making and their capacity to access and apply these principles. There was also evidence that the program resulted in PHN staff applying economic evaluations when commissioning service providers. Evaluation of the eE identified two key facilitators for achieving these results. First, a highly receptive organisational context characterised by a work ethic, and site processes and procedures that were dedicated to improvement. Second was the development of trusted relationships between the embedded economist and PHN staff that was enabled through: the commitment of the economist to bi-directional learning; facilitating access to economic tools and techniques; personality traits (likeable and enthusiastic); and because the eE provided ongoing support for PHN projects beyond the fifteen-week embedding period. This study provides the first detailed case description of an embedded health economics program. The results demonstrate how the process, context and relational factors of engaging and embedding the support of a health economist works and why. The findings reinforce international evidence in this area and are of practical utility to the future deployment of such programs.

Edelman and colleagues’ analysis of the views of Board members of Australian Research Translation Centres (RTCs) is well timed. There has been little study of Australian RTCs to date. We focus on their recommendations regarding knowledge mobilisation (KM) to open broader debate on the wisdom of regarding UK practices as a blueprint. We go further and ask whether successful RTCs might, as a result of responding to local context, create idiosyncratic structures and solutions, making generalisable learning less likely? There has been much invested in Australian RTCs and implications of government’s formative evaluation of their work is discussed. Five recommendations are made that could help RTCs: allowing system end-users a greater say in funding decisions, taking a broader, more democratic approach to kinds of knowledge that are valued; investing in methodologies derived from the innovation space; and, a creative attention to governance to support these ideas.

Introduction: Despite increased emphasis on education and training for patient safety in medical schools, there is little known about factors influencing decision making regarding patient safety behaviours. This study examined the nature and magnitude of factors which may influence opinions around patient safety related behaviours as a means of providing insights into how Australian doctors and medical students view these issues relative to members of the public. Methods: A national, multicentre, prospective, on-line cross sectional survey was conducted using responses to hypothetical clinical scenarios. Three cohorts were surveyed - Australian enrolled medical students, medical doctors and members of the public. Participant responses were compared for the different contextual variables within the scenarios and the participants’ demographic characteristics – student, doctor, member of the public, gender and age (if public or doctors)/ seniority in the course (if a medical student). Results: In total there were 2602 medical student participants, 809 doctors and 503 members of the Australian public. Medical doctors were more likely than other cohorts to have statistically significant differences in how they viewed the acceptability of patient safety related behaviours; doctors were more tolerant of medical students not reporting concerning behaviours. Medical students’ opinions frequently demonstrated a ‘transition effect’, bridging between the doctors and publics’ attitudes, consistent with professional identity formation. Conclusions: Opinions on the acceptability of medical students’ patient safety related behaviours were influenced by the demographics of the cohort and the contextual complexity of the scenario. Although the survey used hypothetical scenarios, doctors and medical students’ opinions appear to be influenced by cognitive dissonances, biases and heuristics which may negatively affect patient safety. ‘Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance’ Plato

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to argue for an improved conceptualisation of health service research, using Stengers' (2018) metaphor of “slow science” as a critical yardstick.Design/methodology/approach: The paper is structured in three parts. It first reviews the field of health services research and the approaches that dominate it. It then considers the healthcare research approaches whose principles and methodologies are more aligned with “slow science” before presenting a description of a “slow science” project in which the authors are currently engaged.Findings: Current approaches to health service research struggle to offer adequate resources for resolving frontline complexity, principally because they set more store by knowledge generalisation, disciplinary continuity and integrity and the consolidation of expertise, than by engaging with frontline complexity on its terms, negotiating issues with frontline staff and patients on their terms and framing findings and solutions in ways that key in to the in situ dynamics and complexities that define health service delivery.Originality/value: There is a need to engage in a paradigm shift that engages health services as co-researchers, prioritising practical change and local involvement over knowledge production. Economics is a research field where the products are of natural appeal to powerful health service managers. A “slow science” approach adopted by the embedded Economist Program with its emphasis on pre-implementation, knowledge mobilisation and parallel site capacity development sets out how research can be flexibly produced to improve health services.

Introduction: The Professionalism of Medical Students (PoMS) study aimed to develop a comprehensive understanding of Australian and New Zealand (Aus/NZ) medical students’ opinions and experience with professionalism dilemmas. Methods: A confidential, online survey for medical students was developed and distributed to all Aus/NZ medical schools. Students submitted de-identified demographic information, gave opinions on the acceptability of a range of student behaviours for professionally challenging situations, and whether they had encountered similar situations. Results: 3171 medical students participated from all 21 Aus/NZ medical schools (16% of the total student population). Medical students reported encountering many of the professionally challenging situations and had varying opinions on what was acceptable behaviour for the scenarios. In general, students’ opinions were not influenced by the seniority, gender or the type of health professional involved in the scenario. Participant demographic factors appeared to have significant effects on professional opinions – particularly male gender and being a student in the latter stages of the course. Discussion: Medical students’ professional opinions are a complex area. The PoMS data provides a reference point for students, their educators and other health professionals in identifying current student professional behaviour norms, determining the effects of demographic factors on their decision making, and where important gaps exist in medical students’ approaches to professionalism.