Search

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) have faced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these arising out of their social positions. Existing literature explicating these challenges (e.g., lack of appropriate PPE, redeployment, understaffing) have highlighted inequities in how these have been experienced by HCWs based on ethnicity, gender or, job role. In this paper, we move a step ahead and examine how the intersection of these social positions have impacted HCWs' experiences of challenges during the pandemic. Methods: We collected qualitative data, using interviews and focus groups, from 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, gender, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 2020 and July 2021. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a hybrid thematic analytical approach integrating inductive data-driven codes with deductive ones informed by an intersectional framework was adopted to analyse the transcripts. Results: Thematic analysis of transcripts identified disempowerment, disadvantage and, discrimination as the three main themes around which HCWs' experiences of challenges were centred, based on their intersecting identities (e.g., ethnicity gender, and/or migration status). Our analysis also acknowledges that disadvantages faced by HCWs were linked to systemic and structural factors at the micro, meso and macro ecosystemic levels. This merging of analysis which is grounded in intersectionality and considers the ecosystemic levels has been termed as 'intrasectionalism'. Discussion: Our research demonstrates how an intrasectional lens can help better understand how different forms of mutually reinforcing inequities exist at all levels within the healthcare workforce and how these impact HCWs from certain backgrounds who face greater disadvantage, discrimination and disempowerment, particularly during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recent surge in applications to nursing in the United Kingdom together with the shift towards providing virtual interviews through the use of video platforms has provided an opportunity to review selection methodologies to meet a new set of challenges. However there remains the requirement to use selection methods which are evidence-based valid and reliable even under these new challenges. Method: This paper reports an evaluation study of applicants to nursing and midwifery and reports on how to plan and use online interviews for in excess of 3000 applicants to two schools of nursing in Northern Ireland. Data is reported from Participants, Assessors and Administrators who were asked to complete an online evaluation using Microsoft Forms. Results: A total of 1559 participants completed the questionnaire. The majority were aged 17–20. The findings provide evidence to support the validity and reliability of the online interview process. Importantly the paper reports on the design and implementation of a fully remote online interview process that involved a collaboration with two schools of nursing without compromising the rigour of the admissions process. The paper provides practical, quantitative, and qualitative reasons for concluding that the online remote selection process generated reliable data to support its use in the selection of candidates to nursing and midwifery. Conclusion: There are significant challenges in moving to online interviews and the paper discusses the challenges and reflects on some of the broader issues associated with selection to nursing and midwifery. The aim of the paper is to provide a platform for discussion amongst other nursing schools who might be considering major changes to their admissions processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) are a leading model in research capacity strengthening activities. Although numerous frameworks and guiding principles for effective research partnerships exist, few include the perspective of the LMIC partner. This paper draws out lessons for establishing and maintaining successful research collaborations, based on partnership dynamics, from the perspectives of both HIC and LMIC stakeholders through the evaluation of a research capacity strengthening partnership award scheme.Methods: A mixed-method retrospective evaluation approach was used. Initially, a cross-sectional survey was administered to all award holders, which focused on partnership outputs and continuation. Fifty individuals were purposively selected to participate in interviews or focus group discussions from 12 different institutions in HICs and LMICs; the sample included the research investigators, research assistants, laboratory scientists and post-doctoral students. The evaluation collected data on critical elements of research partnership dynamics such as research outputs, nature of the partnership, future plans and research capacity. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using an iterative framework approach.Results: The majority of United Kingdom and African award holders stated they would like to pursue future collaborations together. Key aspects within partnerships that appeared to influence this were; the perceived benefits of the partnership at the individual and institutional level such as publication of papers or collaborative grants; ability to influence 'research culture' and instigate critical thinking among mid-career researchers; previous working relationships, for example supervisor-student relationships; and equity within partnerships linked to partnership formation and experience of United Kingdom partners within LMICs. Factors which may hinder development of long term partnerships were also identified such as financial control or differing expectations of partners.Conclusions: This paper provides evidence of what encourages international research partnerships for capacity strengthening to continue past award tenure, from the perspective of researchers in high and LMICs. Although every partnership is unique and individual experiences subjective, this paper provides extension and support of key principles and mechanisms that can contribute to successful research partnerships between researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic administrative data exist in several domains which, if linked, are potentially useful for research. However, benefits from data linkage should be considered alongside risks such as the threat to privacy. Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a birth cohort study. The Project to Enhance ALSPAC through Record Linkage (PEARL) was established to enrich the ALSPAC resource through linkage between ALSPAC participants and routine sources of health and social data. Qualitative research was incorporated in the PEARL study to examine participants' views about data linkage and inform approaches to information sharing. This paper focusses on issues of consent.Methods: Digitally recorded interviews were conducted with 55 participants aged 17-19 years. Terms and processes relating to consent, anonymization and data linkage were explained to interviewees. Scenarios were used to prompt consideration of linking different sources of data, and whether consent should be requested. Interview recordings were fully transcribed. Thematic analysis was undertaken using the Framework approach.Results: Participant views on data linkage appeared to be most influenced by: considerations around the social sensitivity of the research question, and; the possibility of tangible health benefits in the public interest. Some participants appeared unsure about the effectiveness of anonymization, or did not always view effective anonymization as making consent unnecessary. This was related to notions of ownership of personal information and etiquette around asking permission for secondary use. Despite different consent procedures being explained, participants tended to equate consent with 'opt-in' consent through which participants are 'asked' if their data can be used for a specific study. Participants raising similar concerns came to differing conclusions about whether consent was needed. Views changed when presented with different scenarios, and were sometimes inconsistent.Conclusions: Findings from this study question the validity of 'informed consent' as a cornerstone of good governance, and the extent to which potential research participants understand different types of consent and what they are consenting, or not consenting, to. Pragmatic, imaginative and flexible approaches are needed if research using data linkage is to successfully realise its potential for public good without undermining public trust in the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Consequently, many researchers use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of primary care services. In order to identify what outcomes a PROM for primary care would need to include, we conducted interviews with patients and practitioners. This paper reports these patient and practitioners' views on the outcomes arising from primary care consultations. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were held with 30 patients and eight clinicians across five sites in Bristol. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. We used a broad definition of health outcome as 'the impacts of healthcare on health, or a patient's ability to impact health' to identify outcomes through this process. Results: 10 outcome groups were identified. These occupied 3 domains: Health Empowerment: These are the internal and external resources which enable patients to improve their health. This involves 1) patients' understanding of their illnesses, 2) ability to self-care and stay healthy, 3) agreeing and adhering to a patient-clinician shared plan, 4) confidence in seeking healthcare and 5) access to support. Health Status: This involves 6) reduction of symptoms and 7) reducing the impact of symptoms on patients' lives. Health Perceptions: This involves 8) patients' satisfaction with their health, 9) health concerns, and 10) confidence in their future health. The structure, organisation and nature of primary care means it can affect all 3 domains. Conclusions: No existing PROM captures all these outcomes. For example, many health empowerment PROMs do not consider patient preference on empowerment. Many health status tools are not responsive to changes resulting from primary care. Health perceptions PROMs have generally been designed for measuring personality traits rather than outcomes. This study provides a platform for designing a new PROM containing outcomes that matter to patients and can be influenced by primary care. Such a PROM would greatly enhance the value of primary care research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The implementation of a complex intervention is heavily influenced by individual context. Variation in implementation and tailoring of the intervention to the particular context will occur, even in a trial setting. It is recognised that in trials, evaluating the process of implementation of a complex intervention is important, yet process evaluation methods are rarely reported. The WAVES study is a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an obesity prevention intervention programme targeting children aged 6–7 years, delivered by teachers in primary schools across the West Midlands, UK. The intervention promoted activities encouraging physical activity and healthy eating. This paper presents the methods used to assess implementation of the intervention. Methods. Previous literature was used to identify the dimensions of intervention process and implementation to be assessed, including adherence, exposure, quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, context, and programme differentiation. Results. Multiple methods and tools were developed to capture information on all these dimensions. These included observations, logbooks, qualitative evaluation, questionnaires and research team reflection. Discussion. Data collection posed several challenges, predominantly when relying on teachers to complete paperwork, which they saw as burdensome on top of their teaching responsibilities. However, the use of multiple methods helped to ensure data on each dimension, where possible, was collected using more than one method. This also allowed for triangulation of the findings when several data sources on any one dimension were available. Conclusions. We have reported a comprehensive approach to the assessment of the implementation and processes of a complex childhood obesity prevention intervention within a cluster randomised controlled trial. These approaches can be transferred and adapted for use in other complex intervention trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]