Search

Background: Involvement of young partners by experience in research is on the rise and becoming expected practice. However, literature on how to promote equitable and meaningful involvement of young people is scarce. The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect on different approaches between researchers and young partners by experience based on six research projects conducted in Canada, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Methods: From six exemplar research projects, at least one researcher and one young partner by experience were asked to collaboratively (1) describe the project; (2) summarise the values and practicalities of the project; and (3) reflect on their partnership. Thematic analysis was applied to the findings from these reflective exercises, which included meeting summaries, recordings, and notes. Results: All projects shared similar values, including mutual respect between all team members. Young partners were offered a variety of opportunities and approaches to being involved, for example in recruiting participants, co-analysing or (co-)presenting results. Supports were provided to the teams in a variety of ways, including organizing accessible meetings and having dedicated facilitators. Regular and proactive communication was encouraged by using asynchronous modes of communication, establishing reference documents, and a personal approach by facilitators. Facilitators aimed to tailor the needs of all team members by continuously discussing their preferred roles in the project. While most projects did not offer formal research training, various learning and skill development opportunities were provided throughout, including presenting skills or advocacy training. Conclusion: With this paper, we demonstrated the value of reflection, and we invite others to reflect on their partnerships and share their lessons learned. Our recommendations for involvement of young people in research are: (1) Remember that it is okay to not know what the partnership might look like and there is no single recipe of how to partner; (2) Take the time to invest in partnerships; (3) Provide ongoing opportunities to reflect on partnerships; (4) Consider how to balance the power dynamics; and (5) Consider how to incorporate diversity in the background of young partners in research. Plain English summary: In more and more projects, researchers and young people are working together in partnership; but there is little guidance about how to organize this partnership. In this paper, we share what partnerships in six projects from Canada, Netherlands, and United Kingdom looked like, so that others can be inspired. To do so, a researcher and a young partner from each project were asked to together: (1) describe their project, (2) summarize the practical details about the collaboration and (3) think about things that went well or could be improved. We found that all projects had the same beliefs important to partnerships, like having respect for each other. Young people could work on parts of the project they liked in a way that worked for them. They were supported by staff, could join meetings and were appreciated for their work. Clear communication during and in-between meetings was helpful. Youth were often asked about the role they wanted in the project. While there was often no formal training on how to do research, there were many opportunities to learn. We offer six recommendations to researchers and young people who want to partner together: (1) It is okay to not know what the partnership will look like and there is no single recipe of how to partner; (2) Take your time; (3) Discuss how the partnership is going; (4) Think about who is doing what and why; (5) Consider the diversity of young partners. We hope others will share their experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost 80 million people globally are forcibly displaced. A small number reach wealthy western countries and seek asylum. Over half are children. Wealthy reception countries have increasingly adopted restrictive reception practices including immigration detention. There is an expanding literature on the mental health impacts of immigration detention for adults, but less about children. This scoping review identified 22 studies of children detained by 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Netherlands, the UK and the US) through searches of Medline, PsychINFO, Emcare, CINAHL and Scopus data bases for the period January 1992–May 2019. The results are presented thematically. There is quantitative data about the mental health of children and parents who are detained and qualitative evidence includes the words and drawings of detained children. The papers are predominantly small cross-sectional studies using mixed methodologies with convenience samples. Despite weaknesses in individual studies the review provides a rich and consistent picture of the experience and impact of immigration detention on children's wellbeing, parental mental health and parenting. Displaced children are exposed to peri-migration trauma and loss compounded by further adversity while held detained. There are high rates of distress, mental disorder, physical health and developmental problems in children aged from infancy to adolescence which persist after resettlement. Restrictive detention is a particularly adverse reception experience and children and parents should not be detained or separated for immigration purposes. The findings have implications for policy and practice. Clinicians and researchers have a role in advocacy for reception polices that support the wellbeing of accompanied and unaccompanied children who seek asylum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a critical priority in research, policy, academia and advocacy organizations. PPI in dementia research is gaining momentum. However, these efforts are missing in international projects aimed at those living with advanced dementia in long‐term care (LTC) homes. Additional complexities can arise in enacting PPI within the context of integration of a palliative approach to care and experiences around end‐of‐life in (EOL) dementia. The mySupport study involved implementing the Family Carer Decision Support (FCDS) intervention for care partners of those living with advanced dementia in LTC in six countries. Research Design and Objective: An interpretive description study was conducted to explore the perspectives of international researchers from six countries on engaging people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL care in research processes. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and a subsequent toolkit for the FCDS intervention. Findings: Thirty‐eight interviews were completed with project researchers: 12 from the United Kingdom, 8 from Canada, 7 from Ireland, 4 each from Italy and The Netherlands and 3 from the Czech Republic. Four broad themes describe international researchers' perspectives on advancing methods of engagement for people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL in international PPI activities: (1) Groundwork to engage in research; (2) planning for research activities is key; (3) focus on meaningful engagement and (4) having foresight for practical issues shaping PPI. Discussion and Implications: International projects that involve PPI can present many sources of challenges. The findings in this study highlight important considerations for foundational work for incorporating PPI in international projects. Learning from world leaders and those with lived experiences in various regions can be insightful and help share tools and resources. Patient or Public Contribution: PPI was envisioned as a critical part of conducting the mySupport study. The findings from this study informed the development of a PPI strategy and an international Strategic Guiding Council that included family carers of those living with advanced dementia in LTC homes in six countries. This manuscript focused on the perspectives of researchers on their engagement with people with lived experiences of dementia and EOL. The perspectives of persons with lived experiences on engaging in the mySupport research study will be reported in a forthcoming manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The value of a life is regularly monetised by government departments for informing resource allocation. Guidance documents indicate how economic evaluation should be conducted, often specifying precise values for different impacts. However, we find different values of life and health are used in analyses by departments within the same government despite commonality in desired outcomes. This creates potential inconsistencies in considering trade-offs within a broader public sector spending budget. We provide evidence to better inform the political process and to raise important issues in assessing the value of public expenditure across different sectors. Methods: Our document analysis identifies thresholds, explicitly or implicitly, as observed in government-related publications in the following public sectors: health, social care, transport, and environment. We include both demand-side and supply-side thresholds, understood as societies' and governments' willingness to pay for health gains. We look at key countries that introduced formal economic evaluation processes early on and have impacted other countries' policy development: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We also present a framework to consider how governments allocate resources across different public services. Results: Our analysis supports that identifying and describing the Value of a Life from disparate public sector activities in a manner that facilitates comparison is theoretically meaningful. The optimal allocation of resources across sectors depends on the relative position of benefits across different attributes, weighted by the social value that society puts on them. The value of a Quality-Adjusted Life Year is generally used as a demand-side threshold by Departments of transport and environment. It exceeds those used in health, often by a large enough proportion to be a multiple thereof. Decisions made across departments are generally based on an unspecified rationing rule. Conclusions: Comparing government expenditure across different public sector departments, in terms of the value of each department outcome, is not only possible but also desirable. It is essential for an optimal resource allocation to identify the relevant social attributes and to quantify the value of these attributes for each department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Maternal death generates a great impact on public health, and it is recognized that its main cause is postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Therefore, the objective was to analyze the bibliometric profile of the world scientific production on maternal mortality due to PPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bibliometric study that included original articles indexed in Scopus, identified by means of a search strategy that included MESH terms and logical operators. Bibliometric indicators were estimated with the SciVal tool, and the VOSwiever program was used for co-occurrence networks by key terms and co-authorship by country. RESULTS: There has been an increase in the number of publications in the past 5 years. Regarding co-occurrence, the most frequent terms were "postpartum hemorrhage" and "maternal mortality." The United States and the United Kingdom are positioned as those with the highest density of publications; in addition, Australia evidences collaboration with Canada and South Korea. Publications with national collaboration were more frequent (36%). BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth is the most productive journal, although BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has a higher normalized impact. The authors with the highest scientific output belong to an institution in the Netherlands. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Leiden University are the most productive. CONCLUSION: Scientific activity on maternal mortality due to PPH is increasing and its main means of dissemination are high-impact journals. National collaboration was more frequent, with the active participation of authors and institutions from the Netherlands and the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiological evidence suggests that regular physical activity (PA) positively impacts individuals' mental health (MH). The PA-MH relationship may be critical among immigrants owing to psycho-social-cultural influences. This scoping review of 61 studies employed a holistic bio-psycho-socio-cultural framework to thoroughly investigate the complex relationship between PA (across life domains) and immigrants' MH in Western countries. A systematic search of five electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Anthropology Plus) was conducted to locate relevant articles. No limitations were applied to study design, age, gender, home country, MH condition or PA type. A bio-psycho-socio-cultural-informed conceptual model guided the analysis of the multi-domain PA-MH relationship. Immigrant PA-MH studies were conducted and reported most commonly in the USA (38%), Australia (18%), and Canada (11%). Overall, PA was positively related to MH. Each domain-specific PA appeared to be associated with unique MH-promoting pathways/mechanisms. Leisure-related PA may support MH by enhancing self-agency and minimizing risky behaviors, whilst travel- and domestic-related PA may promote self-accomplishment and physical engagement. Ethnic sports appeared to enhance resilience. Occupational-related PA was associated with either positive or negative MH, depending on the type of occupation. A bio-psycho-socio-cultural-informed model is required to gain an encompassing and integrated understanding of immigrants' health. The first iteration of such a model is presented here, along with an illustration of how the model may be used to deepen analysis and understanding of the multi-domain PA-MH relationship among immigrants and inform public health planners and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nursing competency frameworks describe the competencies; knowledge, skills and attitudes nurses should possess. Countries have their own framework. Knowledge of the content of professional competency frameworks in different countries can enhance the development of these frameworks and international collaborations. Objective: This study examines how competencies and task divisions are described in the current professional competency frameworks for registered nurses (RNs with a Bachelor's degree) in the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and the United States (US). Methods: Qualitative document analysis was conducted using the most recently published professional competency frameworks for registered nurses in the above-mentioned five countries. Results: All the competency frameworks distinguished categories of competencies. Three of the five frameworks explicitly mentioned the basis for the categorization: an adaptation of the CanMEDS model (Netherlands), European directives on the recognition of professional qualifications (Belgium) and an adapted inter-professional framework (US). Although there was variation in how competencies were grouped, we inductively identified ten generic competency domains: (1) Professional Attitude, (2) Clinical Care in Practice, (3) Communication and Collaboration, (4) Health Promotion and Prevention, (5) Organization and Planning of Care, (6) Leadership, (7) Quality and Safety of Care, (8) Training and (continuing) Education, (9) Technology and e-Health, (10) Support of Self-Management and Patient Empowerment. Country differences were found in some more specific competency descriptions. All frameworks described aspects related to the division of tasks between nurses on the one hand and physicians and other healthcare professionals on the other hand. However, these descriptions were rather limited and often imprecise. Conclusions: Although ten generic domains could be identified when analysing and comparing the competency frameworks, there are country differences in the categorizations and the details of the competencies described in the frameworks. These differences and the limited attention paid to the division of tasks might lead to cross-country differences in nursing practice and barriers to the international labour mobility of Bachelor-educated RNs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the mySupport advance care planning intervention was originally developed and evaluated in Northern Ireland (UK). Family caregivers of nursing home residents with dementia received an educational booklet and a family care conference with a trained facilitator to discuss their relative's future care. Objectives to investigate whether upscaling the intervention adapted to local context and complemented by a question prompt list impacts family caregivers' uncertainty in decision-making and their satisfaction with care across six countries. Second, to investigate whether mySupport affects residents' hospitalisations and documented advance decisions. Design a pretest–posttest design. Setting in Canada, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK, two nursing homes participated. Participants in total, 88 family caregivers completed baseline, intervention and follow-up assessments. Methods family caregivers' scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and Family Perceptions of Care Scale before and after the intervention were compared with linear mixed models. The number of documented advance decisions and residents' hospitalisations was obtained via chart review or reported by nursing home staff and compared between baseline and follow-up with McNemar tests. Results family caregivers reported less decision-making uncertainty (−9.6, 95% confidence interval: −13.3, −6.0, P  < 0.001) and more positive perceptions of care (+11.4, 95% confidence interval: 7.8, 15.0; P  < 0.001) after the intervention. The number of advance decisions to refuse treatment was significantly higher after the intervention (21 vs 16); the number of other advance decisions or hospitalisations was unchanged. Conclusions the mySupport intervention may be impactful in countries beyond the original setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]