Search

Background: Working together and co‐production with public advisors have become popular among health researchers. This practice extends to doctoral researchers who involve public advisors at different stages of their research or throughout their doctoral journey. Objective: A doctoral researcher and two public advisors jointly evaluated public involvement in doctoral research. Methods: Using the established public involvement evaluation framework by Gibson and colleagues, public advisors and a doctoral researcher mapped and evaluated their experiences of public involvement in doctoral research. The four‐dimensional framework allowed the authors to reflect on (1) the strength of the public voice, (2) the number of ways in which public advisors had an opportunity to get involved, (3) whether the discussion was about the public or organisation's (doctoral researcher, university or funder) concerns and (4) if the organisation changed or resisted feedback. Results are presented in a diagrammatic and narrative way. Results: Public advisors saw themselves as having a stronger voice in doctoral research than the doctoral researcher perceived. All agreed that there existed multiple ways for public advisors to be involved. Public advisors' feedback was taken on board, but it was also limited due to restrictions of what the doctoral programme allowed. Conclusion: Public advisors ensured that the doctoral research was more relevant to the public. The ongoing involvement also shaped the doctoral researcher's thinking and views. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public advisors were involved throughout the 3 years of this doctoral research. They co‐evaluated this involvement and are co‐authors of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with severe mental illness (SMI) experience higher rates and poorer outcomes of physical long‐term conditions (LTCs). The management of SMI and LTCs is highly complex and many people with SMI rely on informal carers for support, which may lead to high levels of caregiver burden, and caregiver burnout. Caregiver burnout can result in poor health outcomes for informal carers and a reduction in the quality of care they are able to provide. Therefore, it is important to understand the caring experience to identify and address factors that contribute to burden and burnout. Methods: This paper reports a secondary qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups conducted with informal carers of people who have coexisting SMI and LTCs. We recruited 12 informal carers in England between December 2018 and April 2019. The transcripts were coded and analysed thematically. Results: We identified two overarching themes and five subthemes. The themes included 'Fighting on all fronts: Mounting strain between demands and resources', which described the challenge of providing care in the context of coexisting SMI and LTCs, and 'Safekeeping: The necessity of chronic hypervigilance', which captured how informal carers' roles were defined by managing high‐risk situations, leading to hypervigilance and paternalistic approaches to care. Conclusion: The experience of informal carers for people with SMI and coexisting LTCs is marked by limited access to support and the management of significant risk, which could contribute to high caregiver burden. Further primary research is needed to understand how the experiences of the caregiver role for people with SMI and LTCs influence caregiver burden. Patient or Public Contribution: Our PPI panel DIAMONDS Voice provided guidance on this study from conception, design and development of interview guides and recruitment materials to final write‐up. DIAMONDS Voice consists of service users and carers who have experience of SMI and LTCs. Three carer members reviewed the final manuscript, and two are credited as authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, it is estimated that one in three adults live with two or more long‐term conditions (multiple long‐term conditions, MLTCs), that require self‐management. People who experience socioeconomic deprivation face significant health inequalities due to a range of interrelated characteristics that lead to a lack of resources and opportunities. Previous research with underserved populations indicate low levels of trust towards primary care providers and potential barriers for developing patient‐healthcare professional relationships. The purpose of this paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to self‐managing MLTCs, amongst people who experience socioeconomic deprivation. Methods: Semistructured one‐to‐one interviews with adults (n = 28) living in London and Sheffield, United Kingdom with MLTCs who are experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Participants were recruited through general practices, community channels and social media. Data were analysed in NVivo using reflexive thematic analysis methods. Findings: Four analytical themes were developed: (1) challenges in accessing healthcare services, financial assistance, and cultural awareness; (2) empowerment and disempowerment through technology, including digital exclusion, and use of technology; (3) impact and causes of exclusion on self‐management, including social isolation, area‐based and economic exclusion, and health‐related stigma and (4) adapting self‐management strategies, including cost‐effective, and culturally/lifestyle appropriate strategies. Conclusions: Future health interventions and services need to be developed with consideration of the combined complexities of managing MLTCs while experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Increased awareness in practitioners and commissioners of the complexities surrounding the lives of people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation, and the need for targeted strategies to promote self‐management of MLTCs are of great importance. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group contributed to all stages of the study, including providing important feedback on study documents (topic guides and recruitment materials), as well as providing critical insights surrounding the interpretation of interview data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Motor neuron disease (MND) (also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) is a life‐limiting neurodegenerative condition. In up to 20% of people with MND, a pathogenic variant associated with autosomal dominant inheritance can be identified. Children of people carrying a pathogenic variant have a 50% chance of inheriting this and a higher, although harder to predict, chance of developing the disease compared to the general adult population. This paper explores the experience of living with the genetic risk of MND. Methods: We undertook a UK‐based interview study with 35 individuals, including: 7 people living with genetically‐mediated forms of MND; 24 asymptomatic relatives, the majority of whom had an increased risk of developing the disease; and 4 unrelated partners. Results: We explore how individuals make sense of genetic risk, unpacking the interplay between genetic knowledge, personal perception, experiences of the disease in the family, age and life stage and the implications that living with risk has for different aspects of their lives. We balance an emphasis on the emotional and psychological impact described by participants, with a recognition that the salience of risk fluctuates over time. Furthermore, we highlight the diverse strategies and approaches people employ to live well in the face of uncertainty and the complex ways they engage with the possibility of developing symptoms in the future. Finally, we outline the need for open‐ended, tailored support and information provision. Conclusions: Drawing on wider literature on genetic risk, we foreground how knowledge of MND risk can disrupt individuals' taken‐for‐granted assumptions on life and perceptions of the future, but also its contextuality, whereby its relevance becomes more prominent at critical junctures. This research has been used in the development of a public‐facing resource on the healthtalk.org website. Patient or Public Contribution: People with experience of living with genetic risk were involved throughout the design and conduct of the study and advised on aspects including the topic guide, sampling and recruitment and the developing analysis. Two patient and public involvement contributors joined a formal advisory panel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with Parkinson's disease (PD) do not always access specialist outpatient services in a timely manner in Ireland. The perspectives of people living with PD, relating to service access, are largely absent in the existing literature. Aim: To explore experiences of PD service access for people living with PD, using a qualitative approach. Methods: Purposive maximum variation sampling was used. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 service users, including people with PD (n = 22) and supporting carers (n = 3). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Interviews ranged in duration from 30 to 90 min. Data were managed in NVivo 12 and interpreted inductively using thematic analysis. The researchers were reflexive throughout the research process. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was employed to maximise transparency. Results: The findings highlight several key barriers to and facilitators of equitable and timely service access. Three key themes were identified comprising experiences of PD service access including 'geographical inequity', 'discriminatory practices', and 'public and private system deficits'. Together, these themes illustrate how a two‐tiered and under‐resourced health system lacks capacity, in terms of infrastructure and workforce, to meet PD needs for both public and private patients in Ireland. Conclusions: These findings point to problems for PD care, relating to (i) how the health system is structured, (ii) the under‐provision and under‐resourcing of specialist outpatient PD services, including medical, nursing, and multidisciplinary posts, and (iii) insufficient PD awareness education and training across health settings. The findings also show that telemedicine can provide opportunities for making access to certain aspects of PD care more flexible and equitable, but the feasibility and acceptability of technology‐enabled care must be assessed on an individual basis. Implications for policy, practice and research are discussed. Patient or Public Contribution: The design and conduct of this study were supported by an expert advisory group (EAG) of 10 co‐researchers living with PD. The EAG reviewed the interview schedule and the protocol for this study and provided detailed feedback from their perspective, to improve the methods, including the interview approach. The group also reviewed the findings of the study and contributed their insights on the meaning of the findings, which fed into this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]