BackgroundDespite the considerable and growing body of knowledge translation (KT) literature, there are few methodologies sufficiently detailed to guide an integrated KT research approach for a population health study. This paper argues for a clearly articulated collaborative KT approach to be embedded within the research design from the outset.DiscussionPopulation health studies are complex in their own right, and strategies to engage the local community in adopting new interventions are often fraught with considerable challenges. In order to maximise the impact of population health research, more explicit KT strategies need to be developed from the outset. We present four propositions, arising from our work in developing a KT framework for a population health study. These cover the need for an explicit theory-informed conceptual framework; formalizing collaborative approaches within the design; making explicit the roles of both the stakeholders and the researchers; and clarifying what counts as evidence. From our deliberations on these propositions, our own co-creating (co-KT) Framework emerged in which KT is defined as both a theoretical and practical framework for actioning the intent of researchers and communities to co-create, refine, implement and evaluate the impact of new knowledge that is sensitive to the context (values, norms and tacit knowledge) where it is generated and used. The co-KT Framework has five steps. These include initial contact and framing the issue; refining and testing knowledge; interpreting, contextualising and adapting knowledge to the local context; implementing and evaluating; and finally, the embedding and translating of new knowledge into practice.SummaryAlthough descriptions of how to incorporate KT into research designs are increasing, current theoretical and operational frameworks do not generally span a holistic process from knowledge co-creation to knowledge application and implementation within one project. Population health studies may have greater health impact when KT is incorporated early and explicitly into the research design. This, we argue, will require that particular attention be paid to collaborative approaches, stakeholder identification and engagement, the nature and sources of evidence used, and the role of the research team working with the local study community.

BackgroundPrevious estimates for the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions (MSK) and chronic pain in Australia have been based on self-report. We aimed to determine the prevalence and distribution of arthritis, chronic back pain, gout, osteoporosis, spondyloarthropathies and rheumatoid arthritis and current consultations for chronic pain among adults attending Australian general practice, and describe their distribution according to sociodemographic characteristics and presence of co-morbidities.MethodsWe investigated 1,501,267 active adult patients (57.6% females; 22.5% ≥65y) evaluated between 2013 and 2016 and included in the MedicineInsight database (a National Prescribing Service MedicineWise program), a large general practice data program that extracts longitudinal de-identified electronic medical record data from ‘active’ patients in over 550 practices. Three main groups of outcomes were investigated: 1) “prevalence” of arthritis, chronic back pain, gout, osteoporosis, spondyloarthropathies, and/or rheumatoid arthritis between 2000 and 2016; 2) “current” diagnosis/encounter for the same conditions occurring between 2013 and 2016, and; 3) “current” consultations for chronic pain of any type occurring between 2013 and 2016.ResultsThe combined “prevalence” of the investigated MSK (diagnosis between 2000 and 2016) among adults attending Australian general practice was 16.8% (95%CI 15.9;17.7) with 21.3% (95%CI 20.2;22.4) of the sample consulting for chronic pain between 2013 and 2016. The investigated MSK with the highest “prevalence” were arthritis (9.5%) and chronic back pain (6.7%). Patients with some of these MSK attended general practices more frequently than those without these conditions (median 2.0 and 1.0 contacts/year, respectively). The “prevalence” of the investigated MSK and “current” consultations for chronic pain increased with age, especially in women, but chronic pain remained stable at 22% for males aged > 40 years. The investigated MSK and chronic pain were more frequent among those in lower socioeconomic groups, veterans, Aboriginal and Torrent Strait Islanders, current and ex-smokers, and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure.ConclusionsThe investigated MSK are more frequent among lower socioeconomic groups and the elderly. Based on information collected from adults attending Australian general practices, MedicineInsight provided similar estimates to those obtained from population-based studies, with the advantage of being based on medical diagnosis and including a national sample.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12891-018-1941-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Outpatient clinics were shifted rapidly to telehealth in Australia during the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, drastically altering patient care and experience.Aims: To investigate patient satisfaction and acceptability of telehealth consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: Prospective observation study conducted in two hospital rheumatology outpatient departments (OPD) undertaking telehealth consultations during COVID-19. A modified version of a validated telehealth evaluation survey was posted to all patients attending the telehealth OPD rheumatology clinics, including balanced 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses. Cluster analysis was applied to the Likert-scale questions, alongside thematic analysis of free-text responses.Results: There were 128 respondents (29% response rate), of which 69.5% were women and the majority (87.5%) was aged 50 years or older. All telehealth consultations were conducted by telephone. Nearly one-fifth of patients indicated consistent dissatisfaction with telehealth across the range of questions. These patients were older, reported lower educational qualifications and lower health literacy scores and lacked access to the Internet. While many patients found this mode of consultation to be convenient, patients expressed concerns regarding absence of physical examination. A recurrent theme was a desire for a mixed-model clinic in the future, with flexibility of having both telehealth and face-to-face consultations.Conclusions: This study offers unique insights into patients' experiences with telehealth, which until the current global pandemic, has been an uncommon mode of consultation delivery in urban areas. This study suggests when defining the place of telehealth in future healthcare delivery, patient perspective and careful patient selection will be key. Disease progression, language and cognitive ability, health literacy, technology access and patient and clinician preference are important considerations when deciding how effectively to embed and integrate telehealth into consultations.

Background Chronic insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder, with ten to thirty percent of Australian adults reporting chronic difficulties falling asleep and/or staying asleep such that it causes significant daytime impairment. Current Australian general practice guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as first line treatment for insomnia, however research suggests that most general practice consultations for insomnia result in a prescription for hypnotic or sedative medicines. Although the first point of contact for patients experiencing symptoms of insomnia is often general practice, little is known about the current role, experiences and capacity of Australian general practitioners to manage insomnia. This study aimed to address that gap by exploring the attitudes and opinions of general practitioners regarding insomnia management, to inform the development and implementation of new models of best practice insomnia care within general practice. Methods A descriptive, pragmatic qualitative study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit practising Australian general practitioners, varying in age, years of experience and geographic location. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data analysed using thematic analysis.  Results Twenty-eight general practitioners participated in the study. Three major themes were identified: 1) Responsibility for insomnia care; 2) Complexities in managing insomnia; and 3) Navigating treatment pathways. Whilst general practitioners readily accepted responsibility for the management of insomnia, provision of care was often demanding and difficult within the funding and time constraints of general practice. Patients presenting with comorbid mental health conditions and insomnia, and decision-making regarding long-term use of benzodiazepines presented challenges for general practitioners. Whilst general practitioners confidently provided sleep hygiene education to patients, their knowledge and experience of CBTi, and access and understanding of specialised referral pathways for insomnia was limited.  Conclusions General practitioners report that whilst assessing and managing insomnia can be demanding, it is an integral part of general practice. Insomnia presents complexities for general practitioners. Greater clarity about funding options, targeted education about effective insomnia treatments, and referral pathways to specialist services, such as benzodiazepine withdrawal support and psychologists, would benefit insomnia management within general practice.