Judy E. Taylor

Dr. Judy E. Taylor


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
26 August 2016 in BMC Medical Education
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RPRobyn Preston
Robyn Preston
SLSarah Larkins
Sarah Larkins
JTJudy E. Taylor
Judy E. Taylor
Jenni JuddJenni Judd
Jenni Judd
This paper presents a conceptual framework developed from empirical evidence, to guide medical schools aspiring towards greater social accountability. Using a multiple case study approach, seventy-five staff, students, health sector representatives and community members, associated with four medical schools, participated in semi-structured interviews. Two schools were in Australia and two were in the Philippines. These schools were selected because they were aspiring to be socially accountable. Data was collected through on-site visits, field notes and a documentary review. Abductive analysis involved both deductive and inductive iterative theming of the data both within and across cases. The conceptual framework for socially accountable medical education was built from analyzing the internal and external factors influencing the selected medical schools. These factors became the building blocks that might be necessary to assist movement to social accountability. The strongest factor was the demands of the local workforce situation leading to innovative educational programs established with or without government support. The values and professional experiences of leaders, staff and health sector representatives, influenced whether the organizational culture of a school was conducive to social accountability. The wider institutional environment and policies of their universities affected this culture and the resourcing of programs. Membership of a coalition of socially accountable medical schools created a community of learning and legitimized local practice. Communities may not have recognized their own importance but they were fundamental for socially accountable practices. The bedrock of social accountability, that is, the foundation for all building blocks, is shared values and aspirations congruent with social accountability. These values and aspirations are both a philosophical understanding for innovation and a practical application at the health systems and education levels. While many of these building blocks are similar to those conceptualized in social accountability theory, this conceptual framework is informed by what happens in practice - empirical evidence rather than prescriptions. Consequently it is valuable in that it puts some theoretical thinking around everyday practice in specific contexts; addressing a gap in the medical education literature. The building blocks framework includes guidelines for social accountable practice that can be applied at policy, school and individual levels.

26 November 2012 in Australian Journal of Rural Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LBLisa Bourke
Lisa Bourke
JHJohn S. Humphreys
John S. Humphreys
JWJohn Wakerman
John Wakerman
JTJudy E. Taylor
Judy E. Taylor

30 June 2017 in Rural and Remote Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JWJohn Wakerman
John Wakerman
LBLisa Bourke
Lisa Bourke
JHJohn Humphreys
John Humphreys
JTJudy E. Taylor
Judy E. Taylor
The study identifies the differences between rural health and remote health and describes key distinctive characteristics of remote health. The study used a mixed method approach of interviews and questionnaires (utilising a Likert scale) with expert stakeholders in rural health and remote health. A total of 45 interviews were conducted with experts selected from every state and territory of Australia. Of these, 41 also completed a questionnaire, of which 21 respondents were female, 20 identified predominantly as academics while six, five and five indicated that they worked in policy, advocacy and as a practitioner, respectively. Thirteen worked in rural health, 10 in remote health and 18 in both; 23 participants worked in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health. Respondents had worked in rural health or remote health for mean periods of 13 years and 8 years, respectively. Means for each of 15 characteristics indicated that respondents viewed each characteristic as different in remote health compared to rural health. Interviews confirmed these perceived differences, with particular emphasis on isolation, poor service access and the relatively high proportion of Indigenous residents. Those working in remote and Aboriginal health most strongly identified these distinctions. A detailed and rigorous description of the discipline of remote health, and the differences to rural health, will assist policymakers, health planners, teachers and researchers to develop an appropriate workforce, models of service delivery and policy that are relevant, appropriate and effective in order to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and health outcomes across this vast continent.

15 April 2018 in The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KCKaren Carlisle
Karen Carlisle
JFJane Farmer
Jane Farmer
JTJudy E. Taylor
Judy E. Taylor
SLSarah Larkins
Sarah Larkins
RERebecca Evans
Rebecca Evans

23 April 2019 in Qualitative Health Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NTNalita Nungarrayi Turner
Nalita Nungarrayi Turner
JTJudy E. Taylor
Judy E. Taylor
SLSarah Larkins
Sarah Larkins
KCKaren Carlisle
Karen Carlisle
STSandra Thompson
Sandra Thompson
RBRoss Bailie
Ross Bailie
Drawing from Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, we conceptualize the association between community participation and continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes in Indigenous primary health care (PHC) services. Indigenous experiences of community participation were drawn from our study identifying contextual factors affecting CQI processes in high-improving PHC services. Using case study design, we collected quantitative and qualitative data at the micro-, meso-, and macro-health system level in 2014 and 2015 in six services in northern Australia. Analyzing qualitative data, we found community participation was an important contextual factor in five of the six services. Embedded in cultural foundations, cultural rules, and expectations, community participation involved interacting elements of trusting relationships in metaphorically safe spaces, and reciprocated learning about each other’s perspectives. Foregrounding Indigenous perspectives on community participation might assist more effective participatory processes in Indigenous PHC including in CQI processes.

26 March 2018 in Journal of Health Organization and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AEAlexandra Edelman
Alexandra Edelman
JTJudy E. Taylor
Judy E. Taylor
POPavel V. Ovseiko
Pavel V. Ovseiko
STStephanie M. Topp
Stephanie M. Topp
Purpose: Academic health centres (AHCs) are organisations that pursue a “tripartite” mission to deliver high-quality care to patients, undertake clinical and laboratory research, and train future health professionals. The last decade has seen a global spread of AHC models and a growing interest in the role of AHCs in addressing health system equity. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise and critically appraise the evidence on the role of AHCs in improving health equity. Design/methodology/approach: Peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English between 2000 and 2016 were searched. Articles that identified AHCs as the primary unit of analysis and that also addressed health equity concepts in relation to the AHC’s activity or role were included. Findings: In total, 103 publications met the inclusion criteria of which 80 per cent were expert opinion. Eight descriptive themes were identified through which health equity concepts in relation to AHCs were characterised, described and operationalised: population health, addressing health disparities, social determinants of health, community engagement, global health, health system reform, value-based and accountable financing models, and role clarification/recalibration. There was consensus that AHCs can and should address health disparities, but there is a lack of empirical evidence to show that AHCs have a capacity to contribute to health equity goals or are demonstrating this contribution. Originality/value: This review highlights the relevance of health equity concepts in discussions about the role and missions of AHCs. Future research should improve the quality of the evidence base by empirically examining health equity strategies and interventions of AHCs in multiple countries and contexts.