Methods: National online longitudinal survey. As part of a June 2020 survey, participants (n = 1370) were asked ‘In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic’ (yes/no) and also completed the World Health Organisation-Five well-being index. Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded. Results: Nine hundred sixty participants (70%) reported experiencing at least one positive effect during the COVID-19 pandemic. Living with others (P = .045) and employment situation (P textless .001) at baseline (April) were associated with experiencing positive effects. Individuals working for pay from home were more likely to experience positive effects compared to those who were not working for pay (aOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.63, P textless .001) or who were working for pay outside the home (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.58, P textless .001). 54.2% of participants reported a sufficient level of well-being, 23.2% low well-being and a further 22.6% very low well-being. Of those experiencing positive effects, 945/960 (98%) provided an explanation. The three most common themes were ‘Family time’ (33%), ‘Work flexibility’ (29%) and ‘Calmer life’ (19%). Conclusions: A large proportion of participants reported positive effects resulting from changes to daily life due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. So what: The needs of people living alone, and of those having to work outside the home or who are unemployed, should be considered by health policymakers and employers in future pandemic preparedness efforts.
Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets, goes the oft-quoted adage. Surely, it’s well past time to design a primary healthcare system that makes it easy and rewarding to prioritise prevention?
Ocean lifeguards are highly proficient at rescuing people from dangerous conditions and providing high quality on-scene care, but preventing people from needing rescue is a skill that requires practice and experience.
Background: Since the inception of PHNs in Australia, their role in implementing chronic disease prevention activities in general practice has been unclear. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the views of PHN staff on the role of PHNs in promoting prevention, with a focus on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Methods: Content analysis of PHN Needs Assessments was conducted to inform interview questions. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 PHN staff, between June and December 2020, in varied roles across 18 PHNs in all Australian states and territories. Transcribed audio recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour. Results: We identified three main themes: (a) Informal prevention: All respondents agreed the role of PHNs in prevention was indirect and, for the most part, outside the formal remit of PHN Key Performance Indicators (KPIs.) Prevention activities were conducted in partnership with external stakeholders, professional development and quality improvement programs, and PHN-funded data extraction and analysis software for general practice. (b) Constrained by financial incentives: Most interviewees felt the role of PHNs in prevention was contingent on the financial drivers provided by the Commonwealth government, such as Medicare funding and national quality improvement programs. (c) Shaped through competing priorities: The role of PHNs in prevention is a function of competing priorities. There was strong agreement amongst participants that the myriad competing priorities from government and local needs assessments impeded prevention activities. Conclusions: PHNs are well-positioned to foster prevention activities in general practice. However, we found that PHNs role in prevention activities was informal, constrained by financial incentives and shaped through competing priorities. Prevention can be improved through a more explicit prevention focus at the Commonwealth government level. To optimise the role of PHNs, therefore, requires prioritising prevention, aligning it with KPIs and supporting stakeholders like general practice.
Methods: Thirty‐six participants were issued with a “prescription” pad, of 20 LRx scripts, for 1 month and requested to issue an LRx prescription to patients they deemed suitable during their consultation, recording their reason for use of the LRx. Each clinician was then asked to complete a comprehensive feedback questionnaire. Results: Feedback of the LRx was overwhelmingly positive. The script was viewed as a more effective way to convey and support cardiovascular lifestyle advice, than usual care. Forty per cent (196 of 480) of the LRx scripts that were provided to primary and secondary care clinicians during the study period were issued. In most consultations, the LRx script was issued to reaffirm dietary advice. Nurses and health care assistants were more likely than doctors to use the LRx in response to a request for lifestyle advice from a patient. Conclusions: The LRx may be a useful addition to the clinician’s communication toolkit to stimulate lifestyle behaviour changes in their patients. The main barrier to use in the study was lack of consultation time.