ObjectiveProcess evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.DesignSystematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sourcesAcademic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention’s mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context—factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce—if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.ConclusionGreater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016035572.

BackgroundPrevious systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of interventions for frequent presenters to the Emergency Department (ED) but not the costs and cost-effectiveness of such interventions.MethodA systematic literature review was conducted which screened the following databases: Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Econlit. An inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed following PRISMA guidelines. A narrative review methodology was adopted due to the heterogeneity of the reporting of the costs across the studies.ResultsOne thousand three hundred eighty-nine papers were found and 16 were included in the review. All of the interventions were variations of a case management approach. Apart from one study which had mixed results, all of the papers reported a decrease in ED use and costs. There were no cost effectiveness studies.ConclusionThe majority of interventions for frequent presenters to the ED were found to decrease ED use and cost. Future research should be undertaken to examine the cost effectiveness of these interventions.

IntroductionAustralian antenatal care includes specific screening and service provision for domestic and family violence (DFV) and mental health. However, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major care changes, including greatly expanded telehealth. Given difficulties in a safe assessment and management of disclosures via telehealth, DFV and mental health service provision might be substantially impacted. This study therefore aimed to assess COVID-19 effects on DFV and mental health screening, as well as broader service provision from the perspective of local maternity service providers.MethodsMixed-methods study of staff surveys and interviews of staff directly involved in pregnancy care (doctors, midwives, and allied health) in three Sydney (Australia) maternity units, from October 2020 to March 2021. Surveys and interviews interrogated perceived effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery (ensuring required services occurred), timeliness, and quality of (a) overall maternity care and (b) DFV and mental health screening and care; and also advantages and disadvantages of telehealth. Surveys were descriptively analyzed. Interviews were conducted online, recorded, and transcribed verbatim prior to thematic analysis.ResultsIn total, 17 interviews were conducted and 109 survey responses were received. Breakdown of survey respondents was 67% of midwives, 21% of doctors, and 10% of allied health. Over half of survey respondents felt the pandemic had a negative effect on delivery, timeliness, and quality of overall pregnancy care, and DFV and mental health screening and management. Perceived telehealth positives included convenience for women (73%) and reducing women's travel times (69%). Negative features included no physical examination (90%), difficulty regarding non-verbal cues (84%), difficulty if interpreter required (71%), and unsure if safe to ask some questions (62%). About 50% felt telehealth should continue post-pandemic, but for <25% of visits. Those perceived suitable for telehealth were low-risk and multiparous women, whereas those unsuited were high-risk pregnancy, non-English speaking, and/or mental health/psychosocial/DFV concerns. “Change to delivery of care” was the central interview theme, with subthemes of impact on mental health/DFV screening, telehealth (both positive and negative), staff impact (e.g., continuity of care disruption), and perceived impact on women and partners.DiscussionWhile telehealth may have an ongoing, post-pandemic role in Australian maternity care, staff believe that this should be limited in scope, mostly for low-risk pregnancies. Women with high risk due to physical health or mental health, DFV, and/or other social concerns were considered unsuited to telehealth.