Background: Research capacity building (RCB) initiatives have gained steady momentum in health settings across the globe to reduce the gap between research evidence and health practice and policy. RCB strategies are typically multidimensional, comprising several initiatives targeted at different levels within health organisations. Research education and training is a mainstay strategy targeted at the individual level and yet, the evidence for research education in health settings is unclear. This review scopes the literature on research education programs for nurses and allied health professionals, delivered and evaluated in healthcare settings in high-income countries. Methods: The review was conducted systematically in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Eleven academic databases and numerous grey literature platforms were searched. Data were extracted from the included full texts in accordance with the aims of the scoping review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise findings. Program characteristics, approaches to program evaluation and the outcomes reported were extracted and summarised. Results: Database searches for peer-reviewed and grey literature yielded 12,457 unique records. Following abstract and title screening, 207 full texts were reviewed. Of these, 60 records were included. Nine additional records were identified on forward and backward citation searching for the included records, resulting in a total of 69 papers describing 68 research education programs. Research education programs were implemented in fourteen different high-income countries over five decades. Programs were multifaceted, often encompassed experiential learning, with half including a mentoring component. Outcome measures largely reflected lower levels of Barr and colleagues’ modified Kirkpatrick educational outcomes typology (e.g., satisfaction, improved research knowledge and confidence), with few evaluated objectively using traditional research milestones (e.g., protocol completion, manuscript preparation, poster, conference presentation). Few programs were evaluated using organisational and practice outcomes. Overall, evaluation methods were poorly described. Conclusion: Research education remains a key strategy to build research capacity for nurses and allied health professionals working in healthcare settings. Evaluation of research education programs needs to be rigorous and, although targeted at the individual, must consider longer-term and broader organisation-level outcomes and impacts. Examining this is critical to improving clinician-led health research and the translation of research into clinical practice.

Objective: To determine the contextual factors influencing research and research capacity building in rural health settings.Design: Qualitative study using semi‐structured telephone interviews to collect data regarding health professionals’ research education and capacity building. Analysis involved inductive coding using Braun and Clark’s thematic analysis; and deductive mapping to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Setting: Victorian rural health services and university campuses.Participants: Twenty senior rural health managers, academics and/or research coordinators. Participants had at least three years’ experience in rural public health, health‐related research or health education settings.Main outcome measures: Contextual factors influencing the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services.Results: Findings reflected the CFIR domains and constructs: intervention characteristics (relative advantage); outer setting (cosmopolitanism, external policies and incentives); inner setting (implementation climate, readiness for implementation); characteristics of individuals (self‐efficacy); and process (planning, engaging). Findings illustrated the implementation context and the complex contextual tensions, which either prevent or enhance research capacity building in rural health services.Conclusions: Realising the Australian Government’s vision for improved health service provision and health outcomes in rural areas requires a strong culture of research and research capacity building in rural health services. Low levels of rural research funding, chronic workforce shortages and the tension between undertaking research and delivering health care, all significantly impact the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services. Effective policy and investment addressing these contextual factors is crucial for the success of research capacity building in rural health services.

This paper outlines practical tips for inclusive healthcare practice and service delivery, covering diversity aspects and intersectionality. A team with wide-ranging lived experiences from a national public health association’s diversity, equity, and inclusion group compiled the tips, which were reiteratively discussed and refined. The final twelve tips were selected for practical and broad applicability. The twelve chosen tips are: (a) beware of assumptions and stereotypes, (b) replace labels with appropriate terminology, (c) use inclusive language, (d) ensure inclusivity in physical space, (e) use inclusive signage, (f) ensure appropriate communication methods, (g) adopt a strength-based approach, (h) ensure inclusivity in research, (i) expand the scope of inclusive healthcare delivery, (j) advocate for inclusivity, (k) self-educate on diversity in all its forms, and (l) build individual and institutional commitments. The twelve tips are applicable across many aspects of diversity, providing a practical guide for all healthcare workers (HCWs) and students to improve practices. These tips guide healthcare facilities and HCWs in improving patient-centered care, especially for those who are often overlooked in mainstream service provision.

Background: People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included. Methods: An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Results: Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations. Conclusions: This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease.

Women are predicted to be disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased carer responsibilities, loss of income, worry about the virus and a predominantly female healthcare workforce. Whilst there is emerging evidence that negative mental health impacts associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may be more pronounced for women than men, less attention has focussed on changes to health behaviours and health seeking experienced by women. Similarly, the impact of the pandemic in rural areas has not been investigated in detail. Our research questions were ‘have females residing in rural areas experienced changes in alcohol consumption, unhealthy food consumption, smoking, exercise or health seeking during the COVID-19 pandemic?’ and ‘are there differences in health behaviour changes between rural females living with or without children?’. Net increases (scale of 0–1) in consumption of unhealthy food (95% CI 0.05, 0.22) and alcohol (95% CI 0.12, 0.29) were observed. Net decreases (scale of −1 to 0) in visits to the doctor (95% CI −0.23, −0.35) and other health professionals (95% CI −0.40, −0.54) were observed. Compared with females living without children, females who lived with children were significantly associated with increased alcohol consumption (OR 2.4 (95% CI 1.4, 4.1), decreased visits to the doctor (OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.1, 3.2) and decreased visits to other health professionals (OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.1, 3.3). Results suggest that public health approaches may be required to support females residing in rural areas to optimise their health behaviours during the pandemic, particularly for those living with children. Policies must be gender responsive to counteract worsening health and social inequities both during and after the pandemic.

High quality, contemporary data regarding patterns of chronic disease is essential for planning by health services, policy makers and local governments, but surprisingly scarce, including in rural Australia. This dearth of data occurs despite the recognition that rural Australians live with high rates of ill health, poor health behaviours and restricted access to health services. Crossroads-II is set in the Goulburn Valley, a rural region of Victoria, Australia 100–300 km north of metropolitan Melbourne. It is primarily an irrigated agricultural area. The aim of the study is to identify changes in the prevalence of key chronic health conditions including the extent of undiagnosed and undermanaged disease, and association with access to care, over a 15 year period. This study is a 15 year follow up from the 2000–2003 Crossroads-I study (2376 households participated). Crossroads-II includes a similar face to face household survey of 3600 randomly selected households across four towns of sizes 6300 to 49,800 (50% sampled in the larger town with the remainder sampled equally from the three smaller towns). Self-reported health, health behaviour and health service usage information is verified and supplemented in a nested sub-study of 900 randomly selected adult participants in ‘clinics’ involving a range of additional questionnaires and biophysical measurements. The study is expected to run from October 2016 to December 2018. Besides providing epidemiological and health service utilisation information relating to different diseases and their risk factors in towns of different sizes, the results will be used to develop a composite measure of health service access. The importance of access to health services will be investigated by assessing the correlation of this measure with rates of undiagnosed and undermanaged disease at the mesh block level. Results will be shared with partner organisations to inform service planning and interventions to improve health outcomes for local people.