Outpatient Virtual Care Among People Living With and Beyond Cancer From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Protocol for a Realist Evaluation

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1111/hex.70235
Prince Peprah, Sagda Osman, Rebecca Mitchell, Ashfaq Chauhan, Ramya Walsan, Maryam Sina, Bronwyn Newman, Nadine El-Kabbout, Jan Mumford, Emilie Francis-Auton, Elizabeth Manias, Virginia Mumford, Kate Churruca, Michelle Moscova, Natalie Taylor, Craig Nelson, Alexander Cardenas, Robyn Clay-Williams, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Reema Harrison
{"title":"Outpatient Virtual Care Among People Living With and Beyond Cancer From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Protocol for a Realist Evaluation","authors":"Prince Peprah,&nbsp;Sagda Osman,&nbsp;Rebecca Mitchell,&nbsp;Ashfaq Chauhan,&nbsp;Ramya Walsan,&nbsp;Maryam Sina,&nbsp;Bronwyn Newman,&nbsp;Nadine El-Kabbout,&nbsp;Jan Mumford,&nbsp;Emilie Francis-Auton,&nbsp;Elizabeth Manias,&nbsp;Virginia Mumford,&nbsp;Kate Churruca,&nbsp;Michelle Moscova,&nbsp;Natalie Taylor,&nbsp;Craig Nelson,&nbsp;Alexander Cardenas,&nbsp;Robyn Clay-Williams,&nbsp;Jeffrey Braithwaite,&nbsp;Reema Harrison","doi":"10.1111/hex.70235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Virtual care is increasingly being used to deliver outpatient cancer services, yet people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds can experience inequities in accessing these services. A range of complex and context-specific factors impact the effectiveness of virtual care and equity in its use and outcomes. This study draws on the methodological principles of realist evaluation to provide contextual understanding and account of how, why and in what circumstances outpatient virtual care services work (or not) for people from CALD backgrounds accessing cancer services in Australia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Realist evaluation, a theory-driven approach, allows researchers to provide a nuanced understanding of how, for whom and why different interventions work (or not) under different circumstances. We propose an iterative and stakeholder-driven four-phase study design that is exploratory and sequential, following the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES II) quality standards for realist studies. Phase 1 will generate the initial program theory from a realist synthesis of theories for how virtual care interventions are implemented into routine care and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including CALD service providers, service leaders and people with cancer and/or their carers who are from CALD backgrounds. Phase 2 will use semi-structured realist interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and retroductive, theory-driven realist analysis to test and refine the initial program theory. Phase 3 will validate the program theory with a small purposive participant sample outside those who participated in phases 1 and 2. The final phase will coproduce theory-informed actionable recommendations and guidelines for effective virtual models of care implementation through interactive workshops with consumers, managers, service leaders and providers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Knowledge of the contexts and mechanisms that produce optimal outcomes from virtual care is essential to guide the design, adjustment and implementation of virtual care models that provide equitable care outcomes for all patients. Outputs from this realist evaluation, including the program theory and actionable recommendations and guidelines, will inform policy and practice about implementing or adjusting virtual care models and policies or procedures in Australian healthcare to make them more accessible and equitable.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The conceptualisation and design of this study were developed with healthcare consumers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, healthcare providers and academics as part of a national project in Australia. Multicultural consumers who have lived experience of accessing cancer services contributed to the project's design as investigators and are coauthors of this protocol paper. Patients and the public are also represented as Project Steering Group members who will inform the data collection processes, development, and refinement of our program theory.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70235","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70235","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Virtual care is increasingly being used to deliver outpatient cancer services, yet people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds can experience inequities in accessing these services. A range of complex and context-specific factors impact the effectiveness of virtual care and equity in its use and outcomes. This study draws on the methodological principles of realist evaluation to provide contextual understanding and account of how, why and in what circumstances outpatient virtual care services work (or not) for people from CALD backgrounds accessing cancer services in Australia.

Design

Realist evaluation, a theory-driven approach, allows researchers to provide a nuanced understanding of how, for whom and why different interventions work (or not) under different circumstances. We propose an iterative and stakeholder-driven four-phase study design that is exploratory and sequential, following the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES II) quality standards for realist studies. Phase 1 will generate the initial program theory from a realist synthesis of theories for how virtual care interventions are implemented into routine care and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including CALD service providers, service leaders and people with cancer and/or their carers who are from CALD backgrounds. Phase 2 will use semi-structured realist interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and retroductive, theory-driven realist analysis to test and refine the initial program theory. Phase 3 will validate the program theory with a small purposive participant sample outside those who participated in phases 1 and 2. The final phase will coproduce theory-informed actionable recommendations and guidelines for effective virtual models of care implementation through interactive workshops with consumers, managers, service leaders and providers.

Discussion

Knowledge of the contexts and mechanisms that produce optimal outcomes from virtual care is essential to guide the design, adjustment and implementation of virtual care models that provide equitable care outcomes for all patients. Outputs from this realist evaluation, including the program theory and actionable recommendations and guidelines, will inform policy and practice about implementing or adjusting virtual care models and policies or procedures in Australian healthcare to make them more accessible and equitable.

Patient or Public Contribution

The conceptualisation and design of this study were developed with healthcare consumers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, healthcare providers and academics as part of a national project in Australia. Multicultural consumers who have lived experience of accessing cancer services contributed to the project's design as investigators and are coauthors of this protocol paper. Patients and the public are also represented as Project Steering Group members who will inform the data collection processes, development, and refinement of our program theory.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
期刊最新文献
Mobilizing the Power of Lived/Living Experiences to Improve Health Outcomes for all Outpatient Virtual Care Among People Living With and Beyond Cancer From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Protocol for a Realist Evaluation Under-Served Groups and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Research Workshop; Multiple Barriers to Effective Healthcare, Research and Public Participation Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care – Patients' Perceptions on Caregiving Relationships and Ethics: A Qualitative Study Exploring Long Covid Prevalence and Patient Uncertainty by Sociodemographic Characteristics Using GP Patient Survey Data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1