Additional file 1: of Structuring successful collaboration: a longitudinal social network analysis of a translational research network

De-identified version of collaboration survey #3. Formatting of roster style social network questions shown (Q.18 ff). (18.1 kb)

MOESM1 of When is enough, enough? Understanding and solving your sample size problems in health services research

Additional file 1. Case study. This case study illustrates the steps of a sample size calculation

Additional file 1 of Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice

Additional file 1. BCTTv1_PDF (behaviour change technique labels and definitions) [9]

Additional file 2 of Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice

Additional file 2. Genomics implementation barrier and strategy mapping and theory alignment (interview data coded to theoretical domains framework and behaviour change techniques, alignment of intuitive strategies against behaviour change techniques)

Additional file 4 of Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice

Additional file 4. TIDieR-Checklist_completed

Additional file 3 of Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice

Additional file 3. TDF domains and BCTs counting exercise (counts of number of barriers, TDF domains represented, behaviour change techniques used, theoretical alignment of intuitive strategies)

Additional file 1 of Potentially burdensome care at the end-of-life for cancer decedents: a retrospective population-wide study

Supplementary Material 1: Table S1: Identification of cancer type. Table S2: Demographic characteristics of the cancer decedents by potentially burdensome ED and hospital admission care indicators. Table S3: Cancer and clinical characteristics of the cancer decedents by potentially burdensome ED and hospital admission care indicators. Table S4: Demographic characteristics of the cancer decedents by potentially burdensome chemotherapy or radiotherapy indicators during 2016-2019. Table S5: Cancer and clinical characteristics of the cancer decedents by potentially burdensome chemotherapy or radiotherapy indicators during 2016-2019. Figure S1a: Predictors of characteristics associated with potentially burdensome care at the end of life by indicator type, 2014-2019. Figure S1b: Predictors of characteristics associated with potentially burdensome care at the end of life by indicator type, 2014-2019. Figure S2: Mean number of hospital admissions (a) and ED presentations (b) by month in the last 12 months of life, 2014-2019. Figure S3: Mean number of non-admitted patient occasions of service1 by month in the last 12 months of life, 2016-201

COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) checklist.

COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) checklist.</p

Consumer and provider demographics.

BackgroundSpecialist care units cater to targeted cohorts of patients, applying evidence-based practice to people with a specific condition (e.g., dementia) or meeting other specific criteria (e.g., children). This paper aimed to collate perceptions of local consumers and health providers around specialist care units, as a model of care that may be considered for a new local healthcare facility.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using two-hour workshops and interviews to collect data. Participants were consumers and health providers in the planned facility’s catchment: 49 suburbs in metropolitan Australia. Consumers and health providers were recruited through advertisements and emails. An initial survey collected demographic details. Consumers and health providers participated in separate two-hour workshops in which a scenario around the specialist unit model was presented and discussion on benefits, barriers and enablers of the model was led by researchers. Detailed notes were taken for analysis.ResultsFive consumer workshops (n = 22 participants) and five health provider workshops (n = 42) were conducted. Participants were representative of this culturally diverse region. Factors identified by participants as relevant to the specialist unit model of care included: accessibility; a perceived narrow scope of practice; coordination with other services; resources and infrastructure; and awareness and expectations of the units. Some factors identified as risks or barriers when absent were identified as strengths and enablers when present by both groups of participants.ConclusionsPositive views of the model centred on the higher perceived quality of care received in the units. Negative views centred on a perceived narrow scope of care and lack of flexibility. Consumers hinted, and providers stated explicitly, that the model needed to be complemented by an integrated model of care model to enable continuity of care and easy transfer of patients into and out of the specialist unit.</div

Themes from the workshops for consumer and provider participants.

Themes from the workshops for consumer and provider participants.</p