Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38603061›Full record

ArticleEvaluation journal of Australasia2022

Evaluating a peer-led wellbeing programme for doctors-in-training during the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia, using the Most Significant Change technique.

Karen Crinall, Madeleine Ward, Rebecca McDonald, William Crinall, James Aridas, Daniel L Rolnik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evaluation journal of Australasia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karen CrinallCrinall Consulting, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3643-9969
Madeleine WardMonash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca McDonaldMonash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
William CrinallFederation University Australia, Cowes, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5199-9606
James AridasMonash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia; The Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Daniel L RolnikMonash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article discusses the use of the Most Significant Change (MSC) technique in a mixed-methods evaluation of a pilot wellbeing programme for obstetrics and gynaecology doctors-in-training introduced at a large public hospital during Melbourne, Australia's second coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown, which occurred from 7 July to 26 October 2020. The evaluation was conducted remotely using videoconferencing technology, to conform with pandemic restrictions. MSC complemented the program's participatory principles and was chosen because it seeks to learn about participants' perceptions of programme impacts by evaluating their stories of significant change. Stakeholders select one story exemplifying the most significant change resulting from the evaluated program. Inductive thematic analysis of all stories is combined with reasons for making the selection, to inform learnings (Dart & Davies, 2003; Tonkin et al., 2021). Nine stories of change were included in the selection. The most significant change was a more supportive workplace culture brought about by enabling basic needs to be met and breaking down hierarchical barriers. This was linked to five interconnected themes - connection, caring, communication, confidence and cooperation. The evaluation learnings are explored and reflections on remotely conducting MSC evaluation are shared.

Indexed as

COVID-19 pandemicdoctors-in-traininghealthcare programme evaluationMost Significant Change techniquepandemic kindness movementworkplace wellbeing programmesZoom

Identifiers

PMID38603061
PMCPMC8961201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.