Top

BMC Health Services Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Psycho-oncology | Research

Developing quality indicators for cross-sectoral psycho-oncology in Germany: combining the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method with a Delphi technique

Authors: Lisa Derendorf, Stephanie Stock, Dusan Simic, Clarissa Lemmen

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Background

Internationally, the need for appropriately structured, high-quality care in psycho-oncology is more and more recognized and quality-oriented care is to be established. Quality indicators are becoming increasingly important for a systematic development and improvement of the quality of care. The aim of this study was to develop a set of quality indicators for a new form of care, a cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care program in the German health care system.

Methods

The widely established RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was combined with a modified Delphi technique. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify existing indicators. All identified indicators were evaluated and rated in a two-round Delphi process. Expert panels embedded in the Delphi process assessed the indicators in terms of relevance, data availability and feasibility. An indicator was accepted by consensus if at least 75% of the ratings corresponded to category 4 or 5 on a five-point Likert scale.

Results

Of the 88 potential indicators derived from a systematic literature review and other sources, 29 were deemed relevant in the first Delphi round. After the first expert panel, 28 of the dissented indicators were re-rated and added. Of these 57 indicators, 45 were found to be feasible in terms of data availability by the second round of expert panel. In total, 22 indicators were transferred into a quality report, implemented and tested within the care networks for participatory quality improvement. In the second Delphi round, the embedded indicators were tested for their practicability. The final set includes 16 indicators that were operationalized in care practice and rated by the expert panel as relevant, comprehensible, and suitable for care practice.

Conclusion

The developed set of quality indicators has proven in practical testing to be a valid quality assurance tool for internal and external quality management. The study findings could contribute to traceable high quality in cross-sectoral psycho-oncology by providing a valid and comprehensive set of quality indicators.

Trial registration

“Entwicklung eines Qualitätsmanagementsystems in der integrierten, sektorenübergreifenden Psychoonkologie—AP “Qualitätsmanagement und Versorgungsmanagement” zur Studie "integrierte, sektorenübergreifende Psychoonkologie (isPO)" a sub-project of the “integrierte, sektorenübergreifende Psychoonkologie (isPO)”, was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) (DRKS-ID: DRKS00021515) on 3rd September 2020. The main project was registered on 30th October 2018 (DRKS-ID: DRKS00015326).

Available only for authorised users

World Health Organization. WHO report on cancer: setting priorities, investing wisely and providing care for all. Genf; 2020.

Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262.CrossRefPubMed

Erdmann F, Spix C, Katalinic A, Christ M, Folkerts J, Hansmann J, et al. Krebs in Deutschland für 2017/2018: Robert Koch-Institut; 2021.

Mehnert A, Hartung TJ, Friedrich M, Vehling S, Brähler E, Härter M, et al. One in two cancer patients is significantly distressed: prevalence and indicators of distress. Psychooncology. 2018;27:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4464.CrossRefPubMed

Oberoi DV, White VM, Seymour JF, Prince HM, Harrison S, Jefford M, et al. Distress and unmet needs during treatment and quality of life in early cancer survivorship: a longitudinal study of haematological cancer patients. Eur J Haematol. 2017;99:423–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.12941.CrossRefPubMed

Hinz A, Krauss O, Hauss JP, Höckel M, Kortmann RD, Stolzenburg JU, Schwarz R. Anxiety and depression in cancer patients compared with the general population. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2010;19:522–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2009.01088.x.CrossRefPubMed

Mehnert A, Vehling S, Scheffold K, Ladehoff N, Schön G, Wegscheider K, et al. Prävalenz von Anpassungsstörung, Akuter und Posttraumati-scher Belastungsstörung sowie somatoformen Störungen bei Krebspatienten. [Prevalence of adjustment disorder, acute and posttraumatic stress disorders as well as somatoform disorders in cancer patients]. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2013;63:466–72. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1347197.

Mitchell AJ, Chan M, Bhatti H, Halton M, Grassi L, Johansen C, Meader N. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:160–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70002-X.CrossRefPubMed

Oberoi D, White VM, Seymour JF, Miles Prince H, Harrison S, Jefford M, et al. The influence of unmet supportive care needs on anxiety and depression during cancer treatment and beyond: a longitudinal study of survivors of haematological cancers. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25:3447–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3766-9.CrossRefPubMed

10.

European Partnership for Action against Cancer. National Cancer Plans: Germany. http://www.epaac.eu/from_heidi_wiki/Germany_Working_Document_on_NCP_German_4.1.2012.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

11.

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. Nationaler Krebsplan. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/N/Nationaler_Krebsplan/UEbersicht_Ziele_des_Nationalen_Krebsplans_2020.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

12.

Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF (Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie). Psychoonkologische Diagnostik, Beratung und Behandlung von erwachsenen Krebspatienten: Langversion 1.1, AWMF-Registernummer: 032/051OL. 2014. https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Leitlinien/Psychoonkologieleitlinie_1.1/LL_PSO_Langversion_1.1.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2022.

13.

Holland J, Watson M, Dunn J. The IPOS new International Standard of Quality Cancer Care: integrating the psychosocial domain into routine care. Psychooncology. 2011;20:677–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1978.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Deutscher Bundestag. Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) Fünftes Buch (V) - Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung - (Artikel 1 des Gesetzes v. 20. Dezember 1988, BGBl. I S. 2477) § 135a Verpflichtung der Leistungserbringer zur Qualitätssicherung; 20.12.1988.

15.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Primer on indicator Development and Application: Measuring Quality in Health Care. 1st ed. Oakbrook Terrace; 1990.

16.

Großimlinghaus I, Falkai P, Gaebel W, Hasan A, Jänner M, Janssen B, et al. Erhebung von Qualitätsindikatoren anhand von Routinedaten : Darstellung eines Machbarkeitstests in 10 Fachkliniken für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. [Assessment of quality indicators with routine data: Presentation of a feasibility test in ten specialist clinics for psychiatry and psychotherapy]. Nervenarzt. 2015;86:1393–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-015-4357-y.

17.

Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall M. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:358–64. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.4.358.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Reiter A, Fischer B, Kötting J, Geraedts M, Jäckel WH, Döbler K. QUALIFY: Ein Instrument zur Bewertung von Qualitätsindikatoren. [QUALIFY--a tool for assessing quality indicators]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2007;101:683–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zgesun.2007.11.003.

19.

Döbler K, Schrappe M, Kuske S, Schmitt J, Sens B, Boywitt D, et al. Eignung von Qualitätsindikatorensets in der Gesundheitsversorgung für verschiedene Einsatzgebiete – Forschungs- und Handlungsbedarf. Gesundheitswesen. 2019;81:781–7. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1007-0811.CrossRefPubMed

20.

van Overveld LFJ, Braspenning JCC, Hermens RPMG. Quality indicators of integrated care for patients with head and neck cancer. Clin Otolaryngol. 2017;42:322–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12724.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Oostra DL, Nieuwboer MS, Olde Rikkert MGM, Perry M. Development and pilot testing of quality improvement indicators for integrated primary dementia care. BMJ Open Qual. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000916.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Kusch M, Labouvie H, Schiewer V, Talalaev N, Cwik JC, Bussmann S, et al. Integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (isPO): a new form of care for newly diagnosed cancer patients in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:543. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07782-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Neue Versorgungsformen. https://innovationsfonds.g-ba.de/. Accessed 15 Mar 2023.

24.

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. The German healthcare system: Strong. Reliable. Proven. 2020. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Gesundheit/Broschueren/200629_BMG_Das_deutsche_Gesundheitssystem_EN.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2023.

25.

Heckl U, Singer S, Wickert M, Weis J. Aktuelle Versorgungsstrukturen in der Psychoonkologie. Nervenheilkunde. 2011;30:124–30. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1627780.CrossRef

26.

Mehnert A, Koranyi S. Psychoonkologische Versorgung: eine Herausforderung. [Psychooncological Care: A Challenge]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2018;143:316–23. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-107631.

27.

Schulz H, Bleich C, Bokemeyer C, Koch Gromus U, Härter M. Psychoonkologische Versorgung in Deutschland: Bundesweite Bestandsaufnahme und Analyse. 2018. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Gesundheit/Berichte/PsoViD_Gutachten_BMG_19_02_14_gender.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2022.

28.

Dieng M, Cust AE, Kasparian NA, Mann GJ, Morton RL. Economic evaluations of psychosocial interventions in cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2016;25:1380–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4075.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Foster C. The need for quality self-management support in cancer care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021:bmjqs-2021–013366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013366.

30.

Faller H, Schuler M, Richard M, Heckl U, Weis J, Küffner R. Effects of psycho-oncologic interventions on emotional distress and quality of life in adult patients with cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:782–93. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.40.8922.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Myrhaug HT, Mbalilaki JA, Lie N-EK, Hansen T, Nordvik JE. The effects of multidisciplinary psychosocial interventions on adult cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42:1062–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1515265.

32.

Salm S, Cecon N, Jenniches I, Pfaff H, Scholten N, Dresen A, Krieger T. Conducting a prospective evaluation of the development of a complex psycho-oncological care programme (isPO) in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:531. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07951-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260:1743–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.260.12.1743.

34.

Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020476.

35.

Campbell SM, Cantrill JA. Consensus methods in prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001;26:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.2001.00331.x.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q. 2005;83:691–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x.

37.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Guide to Quality Assurance. Chicago: JCAHO; 1998.

38.

Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin (ÄZQ). 8 Qualitätskriterien und Qualitätsindikatoren. 20.01.2020. https://www.aezq.de/aezq/kompendium_q-m-a/8-qualitaetskriterien-und-qualitaetsindikatoren. Accessed 25 Apr 2022.

39.

Etikan I. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. AJTAS. 2016;5:1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.CrossRef

40.

Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Trotter RT. Qualitative research sample design and sample size: resolving and unresolved issues and inferential imperatives. Prev Med. 2012;55:398–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.003.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Kallus WK. Erstellung von Fragebogen. 1st ed. Wien: facultas.wuv; 2010.

43.

Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, Wales PW. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:401–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Hermes-Moll K, Klein G, Buschmann-Maiworm RE, Baumann W, Otremba B, Lebahn H, et al. WINHO-Qualitätsindikatoren für die ambulante onkologische Versorgung in Deutschland. [WINHO quality indicators for outpatient oncology care in Germany]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107:548–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2013.09.002.

45.

Grassi L, Watson M. Psychosocial care in cancer: an overview of psychosocial programmes and national cancer plans of countries within the International Federation of Psycho-Oncology Societies. Psychooncology. 2012;21:1027–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3154.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Jacobsen PB. Clinical practice guidelines for the psychosocial care of cancer survivors: current status and future prospects. Cancer. 2009;115:4419–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24589.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Turner J. The changing landscape of cancer care - the impact of psychosocial clinical practice guidelines. Psychooncology. 2015;24:365–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3803.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Pirl WF, Greer JA, Gregorio SW-D, Deshields T, Irwin S, Fasciano K, et al. Framework for planning the delivery of psychosocial oncology services: An American psychosocial oncology society task force report. Psychooncology. 2020;29:1982–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5409.

49.

Egidi G. Das Methodenpapier des AQUA-Institutes zu sektorenübergreifenden Qualitätsindikatoren - eine Kritik. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin. 2010.

50.

Großimlinghaus I, Falkai P, Gaebel W, Janssen B, Reich-Erkelenz D, Wobrock T, Zielasek J. Entwicklungsprozess der DGPPN-Qualitätsindikatoren. [Developmental process of DGPPN quality indicators]. Nervenarzt. 2013;84:350–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-012-3705-4.

51.

Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, McGlynn EA, Campbell S, Brook RH, Roland MO. Can health care quality indicators be transferred between countries? Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.1.8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Adler NE, Page AEK. Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs. In: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Psychosocial Services to Cancer Patients/Families in a Country Setting, editor. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2008.

53.

Hoekstra RA, Heins MJ, Korevaar JC. Health care needs of cancer survivors in general practice: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Stelzer D, Graf E, Köster I, Ihle P, Günster C, Dröge P, et al. Assessing the effect of a regional integrated care model over ten years using quality indicators based on claims data - the basic statistical methodology of the INTEGRAL project. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:247. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07573-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Byrne M, O’Malley L, Glenny A-M, Campbell S, Tickle M. A RAND/UCLA appropriateness method study to identify the dimensions of quality in primary dental care and quality measurement indicators. Br Dent J. 2020;228:83–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1200-z.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Backhouse A, Ogunlayi F. Quality improvement into practice. BMJ. 2020;368:m865. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m865.

57.

Sammut R, Griscti O, Norman IJ. Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;123:104058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104058.

58.

Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, Hutton B, Moher D, Sherifali D, Straus SE. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:61–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Gargon E, Crew R, Burnside G, Williamson PR. Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:110–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Cuhls K. Die Delphi-Methode – eine Einführung. In: Niederberger M, Renn O, editors. Delphi-Verfahren in den Sozial- und Gesundheitswissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2019. p. 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21657-3_1.

61.

Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.CrossRef

62.

Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Alizadeh S, Maroufi SS, Sohrabi Z, Norouzi A, Dalooei RJ, Ramezani G. Large or small panel in the Delphi study? Application of bootstrap technique. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2020;9:1267–71. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2020/275.CrossRef

64.

Vogel C, Zwolinsky S, Griffiths C, Hobbs M, Henderson E, Wilkins E. A Delphi study to build consensus on the definition and use of big data in obesity research. Int J Obes (Lond). 2019;43:2573–86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0313-9.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Hsu CC, Sandford BA. Minimizing Non-Response in The Delphi Process: How to Respond to Non-Response. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(17);1-6.

66.

Spranger J, Homberg A, Sonnberger M, Niederberger M. Reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques in health sciences: A methodological review. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022;172:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.025.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Veugelers R, Gaakeer MI, Patka P, Huijsman R. Improving design choices in Delphi studies in medicine: the case of an exemplary physician multi-round panel study with 100% response. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01029-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

69.

Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393.

70.

Steel N. Developing quality indicators for older adults: transfer from the USA to the UK is feasible. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:260–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.010280.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

71.

Jenniches I, Lemmen C, Cwik JC, Kusch M, Labouvie H, Scholten N, et al. Evaluation of a complex integrated, cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care program (isPO): a mixed-methods study protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e034141. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034141.

72.

McGory ML, Kao KK, Shekelle PG, Rubenstein LZ, Leonardi MJ, Parikh JA, et al. Developing quality indicators for elderly surgical patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250:338–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ae575a.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Kötter T, Schaefer F, Blozik E, Scherer M. Die Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren - Hintergrund, Methoden und Probleme. [Developing quality indicators: background, methods and problems]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2010.11.002.

74.

Jandhyala R. Delphi, non-RAND modified Delphi, RAND/UCLA appropriateness method and a novel group awareness and consensus methodology for consensus measurement: a systematic literature review. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36:1873–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2020.1816946.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Developing quality indicators for cross-sectoral psycho-oncology in Germany: combining the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method with a Delphi technique
Authors: Lisa Derendorf
Stephanie Stock
Dusan Simic
Clarissa Lemmen
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Psycho-oncology
Psycho-oncology
Care
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09604-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Developing quality indicators for cross-sectoral psycho-oncology in Germany: combining the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method with a Delphi technique

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Relationship between changes in the public health nurses’ workforce and the empirical Bayes estimates of standardized mortality ratio: a longitudinal ecological study of municipalities in Japan

Patient and health worker perspectives on quality of HIV care and treatment services in Haiti

How do healthcare providers use national audit data for improvement?

Does the implementation of an incentive scheme increase adherence to diabetes guidelines? A retrospective cohort study of managed care enrollees

Perspectives of women and partners from migrant and refugee backgrounds accessing the Cross Cultural Worker Service in maternity and early childhood services—a survey study

Health outcomes, health services utilization, and costs consequences of medicare uninsurance among migrants in Canada: a systematic review