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 3.2 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":3.2000,"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
来自澳大利亚文化和语言不同背景的癌症患者和癌症患者的门诊虚拟护理:现实主义评估的协议
虚拟医疗越来越多地被用于提供癌症门诊服务,然而,来自不同文化和语言背景(CALD)的人在获得这些服务时可能会遇到不平等。一系列复杂和具体情况的因素影响着虚拟护理的有效性及其使用和结果的公平性。本研究利用现实主义评估的方法学原则,提供上下文理解和说明门诊虚拟护理服务如何、为什么以及在什么情况下对来自CALD背景的人在澳大利亚获得癌症服务起作用(或不起作用)。设计现实主义评估是一种理论驱动的方法,它允许研究人员对不同的干预措施在不同的情况下如何、为谁以及为什么起作用(或不起作用)提供细致入微的理解。我们提出了一个迭代和利益相关者驱动的四阶段研究设计,该设计是探索性和顺序的,遵循现实主义和元叙事证据综合:发展标准(RAMESES II)现实主义研究的质量标准。第一阶段将从现实主义的理论综合中产生初步的计划理论,以了解虚拟护理干预如何实施到日常护理中,并与关键利益相关者进行半结构化访谈,包括CALD服务提供者,服务领导者以及来自CALD背景的癌症患者和/或其护理人员。第二阶段将使用半结构化的现实主义访谈和与利益相关者的焦点小组讨论,以及回溯性的、理论驱动的现实主义分析来测试和完善最初的计划理论。第三阶段将在参加第一阶段和第二阶段的参与者之外,用一个小的有目的的参与者样本来验证程序理论。最后阶段将通过与消费者、管理人员、服务负责人和提供者的互动研讨会,共同制定基于理论的可操作建议和指导方针,以实现有效的虚拟护理模式。了解从虚拟护理中产生最佳结果的背景和机制对于指导虚拟护理模式的设计、调整和实施至关重要,从而为所有患者提供公平的护理结果。这一现实主义评估的产出,包括方案理论和可操作的建议和指导方针,将为澳大利亚医疗保健中实施或调整虚拟护理模式和政策或程序的政策和实践提供信息,使其更容易获得和公平。作为澳大利亚国家项目的一部分,本研究的概念和设计是由来自不同文化和语言背景的医疗保健消费者、医疗保健提供者和学者共同制定的。具有获得癌症服务的生活经验的多元文化消费者作为调查人员对项目的设计做出了贡献,并且是本协议文件的共同作者。患者和公众也作为项目指导小组成员代表,他们将告知我们的项目理论的数据收集过程、发展和改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
'What Do People With Long Covid Want From Healthcare Services?' A Qualitative Exploration From Lived Experience. Lived Experiences of Returning to Participation After Mild Stroke: A Phenomenological Study in Spain. Preconception Perceptions, Knowledge and Behaviours of Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Qualitative Study. Social Needs Screening Tools for Clinical Populations in Australia and New Zealand: A Scoping Review and Critical Analysis. Socio-Ecological Factors Influencing Maternal and Child Health Outcomes During Floods in South Punjab Pakistan 2025: A Mixed-Methods Approach.
×
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:604180095
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