Suchergebnisse

There is a tension in the policy field about the way that the policy process should occur and the manner in which evidence should inform policy decisions. This article presents findings from a qualitative study on the introduction of point‐of‐sale tobacco display bans in Australia to provide an insight into the way this public policy was introduced and the way that evidence was used and communicated to influence the policy outcome.This study highlights that tobacco control policy does not merely consist of a series of segmented and unconnected decisions. It is an ongoing process, whereby the acceptability of forms of knowledge has shifted over time. This has enabled the introduction of tobacco control initiatives on the basis of good judgement when there is a paucity of specific evaluation information to support a policy's introduction.

Under the supervision of the coauthors, the lead author undertook doctoral research examining the "lived experience" of caring for an Australian military veteran with posttraumatic stress disorder from the perspective of the intimate partner. Posttraumatic stress disorder is a common mental health condition for military veterans, yet there has been very limited investigation into the partners experience of these caring relationships. In this research, an interpretive phenomenological approach was used to collect data through individual face-to-face interviews with 20 female partners of male veterans diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. In this case study, we discuss the challenges that confronted the lead author as a novice researcher in accessing a sample population, remaining alert to the sensitivities in interviews with potentially traumatized participants, and managing her own emotional reactions to the interview data. This case highlights the need for researcher preparation in pre-empting issues that may arise and the importance of access to skilled supervision for students undertaking research with a sensitive and vulnerable population.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. ; Background Waiting times for hospital appointments, treatment and/or surgery have become a major political and health service problem, leading to national maximum waiting times and policies to reduce waiting times. Quantitative studies have documented waiting times for various types of surgery and longer waiting times in public vs private hospitals. However, very little qualitative research has explored patient experiences of waiting, how this compares between public and private hospitals, and the implications for trust in hospitals and healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to provide a deep understanding of the impact of waiting times on patient trust in public and private hospitals. Methods A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Data collection occurred in 2012–13, and data were analysed using pre-coding, followed by conceptual and theoretical categorisation. Results Participants differentiated between experiences of 'waiting for' (e.g. for specialist appointments and surgery) and 'waiting in' (e.g. in emergency departments and outpatient clinics) public and private hospitals. Whilst 'waiting for' public hospitals was longer than private hospitals, this was often justified and accepted by public patients (e.g. due to reduced government funding), therefore it did not lead to distrust of public hospitals. Private patients had shorter 'waiting for' hospital services, increasing their trust in private hospitals and distrust of public hospitals. Public patients also recounted many experiences of longer 'waiting in' public hospitals, leading to frustration and anxiety, although they rarely blamed or distrusted the doctors or nurses, instead blaming an underfunded system and over-worked staff. Doctors and nurses were seen to be doing their best, and therefore trustworthy. Conclusion Although public patients experienced longer 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' public hospitals, it did not lead to widespread distrust in public hospitals or healthcare professionals. Private patients recounted largely positive stories of reduced 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' private hospitals, and generally distrusted public hospitals. The continuing trust by public patients in the face of negative experiences may be understood as a form of exchange trust norm, in which institutional trust is based on base-level expectations of consistency and minimum standards of care and safety. The institutional trust by private patients may be understood as a form of communal trust norm, whereby trust is based on the additional and higher-level expectations of flexibility, reduced waiting and more time with healthcare professionals.