for helpful comments and suggestions. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated system disruptions are impacting all children and young people (CYP) in Australia. For vulnerable groups of CYP, who already experience poorer health and well-being, these impacts are amplified. Challenges include reduced access to usual services, reduced community supports, financial instability, unemployment and other life circumstances that threaten to widen pre-existing inequities. This article aims to present the reasons for vulnerability of CYP during the pandemic, and to focus on actions by health professionals that mitigate additional challenges to their health and well-being. Using a rapid review of the literature and team-based discussions, eight vulnerable groups were identified: CYP with disabilities, mental health conditions and chronic diseases; CYP facing financial hardship; within the child protection system; Aboriginal; migrant and refugee; in residential care; rural; and isolated CYP. Recommendations for action are required at the level of governments, health professionals and researchers and include enhancing access to health and social supports, prioritising vulnerable CYP in resuming health activity and elevating the voice of CYP in designing the response. The pandemic can be conceptualised as an opportunity to create a more equitable society as we document the inequities that have been exacerbated. Vulnerable groups of CYP must be recognised and heard, and targeted actions must focus on improving their health outcomes during the pandemic and beyond.

Background: 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. Methods: 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.Results: 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.Conclusions: 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. MoreThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.