Search

Introduction: Despite the advancements in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE), the voices of traditionally underserved groups are still poorly reflected in dementia research. This study aimed to report on a PPIE partnership between academics and members of the public from underserved communities to co‐design Forward with Dementia—Social Care, a resource and information website supporting people receiving a dementia diagnosis. Methods: The PPIE partnership was set up in four stages: 1–identifying communities that have been under‐represented from PPIE in dementia research; 2—recruiting PPIE partners from these communities; 3—supporting PPIE partners to become confident to undertake their research roles and 4—undertaking research co‐design activities in an equitable fashion. Results: To address under‐representation from PPIE in dementia research we recruited seven PPIE partners from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ communities; remote/rural area; religious minorities and partners living with rare forms of dementia. The partners met regularly throughout the project to oversee new sections for the study website, refine existing content and promote the website within their communities. Conclusion: Strategies can be used to successfully recruit and involve PPIE partners from underserved communities in co‐design activities. These include networking with community leaders, developing terms of reference, setting out 'rules of engagement', and investing adequate resources and time for accessible and equitable involvement. These efforts facilitate the co‐design of research outputs that reflect the diversity and complexity of UK contemporary society. Patient or Public Contribution: This study received support from seven members of the public with lived experience of dementia from communities that have been traditionally underserved in dementia research. These seven members of the public undertook the role of partners in the study. They all equally contributed to the study design, recruitment of participants, development and revision of topic guides for the interviews and development of the website. Three of these partners were also co‐authors of this paper. On top of the activities shared with the other partners, they contributed to write independently of the academic team the section in this paper titled 'Partners' experiences, benefits and challenges of the partnership'. Further, they provided input in other sections of the paper on a par with the other (academic) co‐authors. [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]

Introduction: Telepractice has the potential to align with the directive to reduce inequalities by United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10. Telepractice additionally addresses a national digital health strategic plan for accessible digitally enabled models of care. To plan improvements, it is essential to understand the experience of telepractice for people with disability, which may be achieved through an approach such as journey mapping. The current article provides both a disability‐specific case study and a methodological guide for the inclusion of customers and clinicians in the meaningful redevelopment of services. The Perth, Australia‐based case study aimed to gain insights into the experience of telepractice for people with disability. The methodological aim describes using co‐design to produce a journey map in collaboration with customers and clinicians, for potential replication in a wide range of health and social care contexts. Method: Interview transcripts gathered from a cohort of customer participants (n = 17) were used to inform the journey map. A group of customers (n = 5) and clinicians plus one manager (n = 5) distributed the findings onto a customer experience journey map during a co‐design workshop. The journey map describes the emotional experience and actions taken, along five phases of a timeline through telepractice service interactions: (1) before, (2) selecting telepractice, (3) telepractice preparation, (4) during telepractice sessions and (5) after. Results: A journey map visualisation of customer experiences was produced that identified strengths of telepractice service delivery (flexibility) while noting challenges (with technology) as opportunities for improvement. The consensus of participants was the desire to have access to telepractice currently and in the future, in addition to in‐person delivery. Conclusion: These findings are valuable in the context of advocating for the incorporation of customers and clinicians through co‐design workshops in the content analysis and creation of a journey map that is representative of the lived experience of accessing telepractice services. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger co‐design process that included customer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher and the co‐designers in the workshops, journey map and this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]