Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, L-
dc.contributor.authorDunt, D-
dc.contributor.authorCadillhac, DA-
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Open 2016; 6(5): e010944en_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives Programmes to address chronic disease are a focus of governments worldwide. Despite growth in ‘implementation science’, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding the best means to measure sustainability. The aim of this review was to summarise current practice for measuring sustainability outcomes of chronic disease health programmes, providing guidance for programme planners and future directions for the academic field. Settings A scoping review of the literature spanning 1985–2015 was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and The Cochrane Library limited to English language and adults. Main search terms included chronic disease, acute care, sustainability, institutionalisation and health planning. A descriptive synthesis was required. Settings included primary care, hospitals, mental health centres and community health. Participants Programmes included preventing or managing chronic conditions including diabetes, heart disease, depression, respiratory disease, cancer, obesity, dental hygiene and multiple chronic diseases. Primary and secondary outcome measures Outcome measures included clarifying a sustainability definition, types of methodologies used, timelines for assessment, criteria levels to determine outcomes and how methodology varies between intervention types. Results Among 153 abstracts retrieved, 87 were retained for full article review and 42 included in the qualitative synthesis. Five definitions for sustainability outcome were identified with ‘maintenance of programme activities’ most frequent. Achieving sustainability was dependent on inter-relationships between various organisational and social contexts supporting a broad scale approach to evaluation. An increasing trend in use of mixed methods designs over multiple time points to determine sustainability outcomes was found. Conclusions Despite the importance and investment in chronic disease programmes, few studies are undertaken to measure sustainability. Methods to evaluate sustainability are diverse with some emerging patterns in measurement found. Use of mixed methods approaches over multiple time points may serve to better guide measurement of sustainability. Consensus on aspects of standardised measurement would promote the future possibility of meta-analytic synthesesen_US
dc.subjectChronic diseaseen_US
dc.titleHow is the sustainability of chronic disease health programmes empirically measured in hospital and related healthcare services?-a scoping reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleBMJ Openen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationHead Public Health: Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne Brain Centre, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne Health Centre for Excellence in Neuroscience, Ballarat, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationFlorey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne Brain Centre, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.