Search

Background Health inequalities in the UK have proved to be stubborn, and health gaps between best and worst-off are widening. While there is growing understanding of how the main causes of poor health are perceived among different stakeholders, similar insight is lacking regarding what solutions should be prioritised. Furthermore, we do not know the relationship between perceived causes and solutions to health inequalities, whether there is agreement between professional stakeholders and people living in low-income communities or agreement within these groups. Methods Q methodology was used to identify and describe the shared perspectives (‘subjectivities’) that exist on i) why health is worse in low-income communities (‘Causes’) and ii) the ways that health could be improved in these same communities (‘Solutions’). Purposively selected individuals (n = 53) from low-income communities (n = 25) and professional stakeholder groups (n = 28) ranked ordered sets of statements – 34 ‘Causes’ and 39 ‘Solutions’ – onto quasi-normal shaped grids according to their point of view. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view. ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ were analysed independently, before examining correlations between perspectives on causes and perspectives on solutions. Results Analysis produced three factor solutions for both the ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’. Broadly summarised these accounts for ‘Causes’ are: i) ‘Unfair Society’, ii) ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’, iii) ‘Intergenerational hardships’ and for ‘Solutions’: i) ‘Empower communities’, ii) ‘Paternalism’, iii) ‘Redistribution’. No professionals defined (i.e. had a significant association with one factor only) the ‘Causes’ factor ‘Dependent, workless and lazy’ and the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Paternalism’. No community participants defined the ‘Solutions’ factor ‘Redistribution’. The direction of correlations between the two sets of factor solutions – ‘Causes’ and ‘Solutions’ – appear to be intuitive, given the accounts identified. Conclusions Despite the plurality of views there was broad agreement across accounts about issues relating to money. This is important as it points a way forward for tackling health inequalities, highlighting areas for policy and future research to focus on. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-3884-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Because the healthcare sector is shifting to a customer-oriented approach, it is important to understand experiences of children as users of healthcare services. So far, studies that measure the influence of medical clowning on patient experiences are scarce. This study aims to measure experiences of children and their parents during day-surgery in hospital setting. Methods A case-control study was conducted in a large Finnish children’s hospital. Seventy children aged 4–17 years coming for a minor operative procedure including pre-operative cannula insertion prior to surgery were included. Thirty-eight children were exposed to the medical clowning intervention and 32 children (the reference group) did not receive exposure to medical clowning. A novel digital survey tool was used to measure patient experiences before and after the insertion of a venous cannula needed for anaesthesia. The children were asked about their emotions, anxiety levels, the pain from the cannula insertion and the best and worst things about the hospital. The parents were asked about their emotions, expectations and the fluency of the procedure and the hospital day. Results Before the procedure, 32% or 36% of the children in the intervention group and 44% or 28% of those in the reference group expressed positive or neutral emotions, respectively. After the procedure, 76% or 63% of children in the intervention group or reference group, respectively, expressed positive emotions. The intervention group rated the medical clowns as the best aspect of the hospital day. Both groups reported that the best aspects of the hospital day were related to the nurses and food and the worst were related to waiting and pain. Most commonly the parents felt uncertainty, anxiety or calmness before the procedure and relief afterwards. Their expectations towards the procedure related to its success and the certainty of the diagnosis. Conclusions The results show a trend towards more positive emotions in children with exposure to medical clowning. The digital survey tool was suitable for gathering information about the experiences of children and their parents. Information on emotions and expectations of children and parents during a procedure is useful when improving the quality of healthcare services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials NCT04312217 , date of registration 17.03.2020. Retrospectively registered.

Background Understanding the knowledge, attitudes and practices of physicians towards antibiotic resistance is key to developing interventions aimed at behavior change. The survey aimed to investigate physicians’ knowledge and attitudes towards antibiotic resistance in a tertiary-care hospital setting in Ghana. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional respondent-driven survey using a 40-item, anonymous, voluntary, traditional paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire among 159 physicians at Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital. Single and multi-factor analysis were conducted to assess the study objectives. Results The survey was completed by 159 of 200 physicians (response rate of 79.5%). Of physicians, 30.1% (47/156) perceived antibiotic resistance as very important global problem, 18.5% (29/157) perceived it as very important national problem and only 8.9% (14/157) thought it as a very important problem in their hospital. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus was the most known about antibiotic resistant bacteria of public health importance followed by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE). In multiple logistic regression analysis, senior physicians were nearly 3 times more likely to know about CRE than junior physicians. The odds of knowing about VRE increased over 4.5 times from being a junior to becoming senior physician. Among junior physicians, age had no associated effect on their knowledge of VRE or CRE. Conclusions Physicians in this survey showed variable knowledge and perceptions on antibiotic resistance. Introducing educational programs on antibiotic resistance would be a useful intervention and should focus on junior physicians. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2899-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background\ud \ud High quality sexual health services are needed to improve both individual and public health outcomes. This study set out to explore what is important to patients who visit a sexual health clinic, and examine their understanding of standard survey questions, in order to inform the collection and interpretation of patient experience data that are used to improve services.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study. In the first part of the interview, we used “discovery interviews” to explore patients’ experiences of attending a central London walk-in sexual health clinic. In the second part, we asked patients how they would respond to eight standard patient experience survey questions and to provide an explanation for each of their responses. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview data.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud We interviewed seventeen participants (nine women, eight men) of different ethnicities and backgrounds. All interviewees were positive about their experience. They described how staff had made them feel “comfortable”, and talked about how staff spent time, listened and did not rush them, despite being a very busy clinic.\ud \ud In response to the survey questions, fourteen patients rated their as care excellent or very good overall. However, survey questions were interpreted in different ways and were not always easily understood.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud The open-ended “discovery interviews” provided new insights into aspects of care that were most valued or could improve. Standard patient experience questions provide a rating but little elucidation of the experiences that lie behind patients’ responses. They do not always measure aspects of care valued by patients or identify areas for improvement. They are not uniformly understood and necessarily collapse a wide range of experiences and views into categories that may seem inappropriate. Qualitative methods have a key role in measuring patient experience and involving patients in service improvement.

Background Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates GPs to initiate and continue participating with medical specialists in new collaborative care models. The following two questions are addressed in this study: What motivates GPs to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with medical specialists? What kind of new collaboration models do GPs suggest? Methods A qualitative study design was used. Starting in 2003 and finishing in 2005, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 21 Dutch GPs. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of practice, and practice site. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by two researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors and preferences were grouped into categories. Results 'Developing personal relationships' and 'gaining mutual respect' appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. Besides developing personal relationships with specialists, the GPs were also interested in familiarizing specialists with the competencies attached to the profession of family medicine. Additionally, they were eager to increase their medical knowledge to the benefit of their patients. The GPs stated a variety of preferences with respect to the design of new models of collaboration. Conclusion Developing personal relationships with specialists appeared to be one of the dominant motives for increased collaboration. Once the relationships have been formed, an informal network with occasional professional contact seemed sufficient. Although GPs are interested in increasing their knowledge, once they have reached a certain level of expertise, they shift their focus to another specialty. The preferences for new collaboration models are diverse. A possible explanation for the differences in the preferences is that professionals are more knowledge driven than organisation driven as the acquiring of new knowledge is considered more important than the route by which this is achieved. A new collaboration model seems a way to acquire knowledge. Once this is achieved the importance of a model possibly diminishes, whereas the professional relationships last.

Background Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates medical specialists to initiate and continue participating with GPs in new collaborative care models. The following question is addressed in this study: What motivates medical specialists to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with GPs? Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with eighteen medical specialists in the province of Groningen, in the North of The Netherlands. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of hospital in which they were practicing, and specialty. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by three researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors were grouped into categories. Results 'Teaching GPs' and 'regulating patient flow' (referrals) appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. In addition, specialists want to develop relationships with the GPs on a more personal level. Most specialists believe that there is not much they can learn from GPs. 'Lack of time', 'no financial compensation', and 'no support from colleagues' were considered to be the main concerns to establishing collaborative care practices. Additionally, projects were often experienced as too complex and time consuming whereas guidelines were experienced as too restrictive. Conclusion Specialists are particularly interested in collaborating because the GP is the gatekeeper for access to secondary health care resources. Specialists feel that they are able to teach the GPs something, but they do not feel that they have anything to learn from the GPs. With respect to professional expertise, therefore, specialists do not consider GPs as equals. Once personal relationships with the GPs have been established, an informal network with incidental professional contact seems to be sufficient to satisfy the collaborative needs of the specialist. The concerns seem to outweigh any positive motivational forces to developing new models of collaborative practice.

Background: Partner notification (PN) is an essential case-finding tool in the management of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Yet, data on the effectiveness and factors impacting implementation of PN in the Netherlands are lacking. With the aim of further exploring and improving the PN process, the current study assessed perceived barriers and facilitators among health care professionals in the STI clinical setting. In particular, we explored the management of PN in young heterosexual patients diagnosed with Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct).Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews among 22 health care professionals (response rate 52%) from 5 of the 8 national STI clinics in the Netherlands. We carried out qualitative content analysis using a framework approach. All participants were nurses, aged mid 20 s to late 50 s, and all but one were female.Results: All health care professionals felt comfortable discussing PN. Other perceived facilitators for PN included: time, one-on-one consultations, interviewing skills (i.e. Motivational Interviewing) and a proactive helping style. Important barriers were identified as: sub-optimal guidelines, inaccurate sexual history, a lack of feedback regarding the motivational strategies that were used, and the lack of feedback regarding overall PN effectiveness. The health care professionals placed an emphasis on the care and treatment of the individual index patient rather than on discussion of PN, or on motivating and helping patients to engage in PN.Conclusions: Health care professionals identified several barriers that need to be overcome, and facilitators which need to be maintained. Future efforts should concentrate on introducing PN protocols, providing feedback on both the effectiveness of strategies used by health care professionals, and on the PN process as a whole, and educating health care professionals about Motivational Interviewing strategies. Moreover, the possible implementation of an Internet-based PN system should be explored.