Search

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite high levels of mental ill‐health amongst young people (aged 15–30), this group demonstrates low help‐seeking and high drop‐out from mental health services (MHS). Whilst shared decision‐making can assist people in receiving appropriate and effective health care, young people frequently report that they do not feel involved in treatment decisions. The current study focused on co‐design of a clinical education and participant information programme for the Brain and Mind Centre Youth Model of Care. This model, which articulates a youth‐focused form of highly personalised and measurement‐based care, is designed to promote shared decision‐making between young people and clinical service providers. Methods: We conducted workshops with 24 young people (16–31; MAge = 21.5) who had accessed mental health services. Participants were asked what advice they would give to young people entering services, before giving advice on existing materials. Workshops were conducted and transcripts were coded using thematic analysis by two lived experience researchers and a clinical researcher. Results: Young people found it empowering to be educated on transdiagnostic models of mental illness, namely clinical staging, which gives them a better understanding of why certain treatments may be inappropriate and ineffective, and thus reduce self‐blame. Similarly, young people had limited knowledge of links between mental health and other life domains and found it helpful to be educated on multidisciplinary treatment options. Measurement‐based care was seen as an important method of improving shared decision‐making between young people and health professionals; however, to facilitate shared decision‐making, young people also wanted better information on their rights in care and more support to share their expertise in their own needs, values and treatment preferences. Conclusions: These findings will inform the delivery of the further development and implementation of a youth‐specific clinical education and participant information programme for the BMC Youth Model. Patient or Public Contribution: Workshops were facilitated by researchers with lived expertise in mental ill‐health (A.H. and/or C.G.) and a clinical researcher (who has expertise as an academic and a clinical psychologist). A.H. and C.G. were also involved in conceptualisation, analysis, interpretation, review and editing of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland. Methods: This was a qualitative study with semi‐structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in‐depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts. Results: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care. Conclusions: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences. Patient or Public Contribution: A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)—comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators—was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members—Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician—are coauthors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To guide the development of high‐quality care for people with multiple chronic conditions, partners of the European Joint Action CHRODIS developed the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model. To assess its suitability for improving care for people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, the model was piloted in a primary care setting with both patients and care providers. Aim: This paper reports on the patient perspective, and aims to explore the priorities, underlying values and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity. Participants and methods: Twenty persons with multimorbidity (selected from general practice registries) participated in a focus group or telephone interview. Subsequently, a questionnaire was completed by 863 persons with multimorbidity registered with 14 general practices. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data by means of descriptive statistics. Results: Frequently prioritized elements of care were the use of shared electronic health records, regular comprehensive assessments, self‐management support and shared decision making, and care coordination. Preferences for how these elements should be specifically addressed differed according to individual values (eg weighing safety against privacy) and needs (eg ways of coping with multimorbidity). Conclusion: The JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model reflects the priorities and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, which supports its relevance to guide the development of person‐centred integrated care for people with multiple chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Patient contribution: European patient experts contributed to the development and applicability assessment of the JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model; Dutch patients participated in focus groups, interviews and a survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Aims: Stroke survivors with aphasia (impaired language/communication) have poor outcomes and gaps in the clinical implementation of best practice contribute to this. Little is known, however, about speech pathologist perspectives on the touchpoints (key moments shaping experiences) in the clinical care pathway that have the greatest impact on service delivery nor how this varies by geographical location. We explored the experiences of speech pathologists who provide aphasia services to establish priorities for improvement and design. Methods and Analysis: This is the initial experience gathering and priority identification stage of an experience‐based co‐design (EBCD) project. Speech pathologists were recruited from 21 geographically diverse Hospital and Health Services in Queensland, Australia. Speech pathologists working in acute, rehabilitation and community services shared positive and negative experiences of delivering aphasia care in interviews and focus groups. Experiential data were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis to determine touchpoints. Priorities for service design were identified using an adapted nominal group technique. Results: Speech pathologists (n = 62) participated in 16 focus groups and nine interviews and shared 132 experiences of delivering aphasia care. Providing care in teams with poor awareness of the impacts of aphasia was identified as a key challenge, as poor patient‐provider communication was perceived to increase risk of adverse outcomes for patients. Speech pathologists identified areas for improvement related to their own professional needs (e.g., greater access to clinical supervision); collaborative health care (e.g., better coordination and interdisciplinary care to increase therapy time); and the service context and environment (e.g., psychological services able to support diverse communication needs). Conclusions: Speech pathologist delivery of aphasia services could be improved through increased access to clinical supervision, opportunities for peer debriefing and interdisciplinary care. Priorities for service design varied by geographical location and included: education to support care transitions (remote areas), improved referral pathways and service linkage (regional areas) and dedicated aphasia staffing (metropolitan areas). Patient or Public Contribution: A consumer advisory committee comprising people with aphasia (n = 3, authors K.M., K.D. and B.A.), their significant others (n = 2, authors J.D. and P.M.), and a Cultural Capability Officer (author G.B.) guided this research. The team: (1) reviewed participant information; (2) co‐designed surveys and workshop resources; (3) copresented research outcomes and contributed to publications. Research questions and study design (e.g., analysis methods and assessment measures) were developed by the research team (authors L.A., V.J.P., D.A.C. and S.J.W.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigated healthcare access and quality for people who are transgender and gender‐diverse (PTGD) in Saskatchewan (SK), Canada, to inform a larger project that was piloting two peer health navigators for PTGD. Methods: Two online focus groups were held. Nineteen participants were recruited to represent a broad range in age, gender and location in SK. Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: The core theme that was identified was participants' desire for culturally safe healthcare. This core theme had two component themes: (1) systemic healthcare factors and (2) individual healthcare provider (HCP) factors. The healthcare system primarily acted as a barrier to culturally safe healthcare. HCPs could be either barriers or facilitators of culturally safe care; however, negative experiences outweighed positive ones. Conclusions: PTGD in SK face discrimination, with delays and barriers to care at all levels of the healthcare system. Peer health navigators can address some of these discrepancies; however, greater support is required for PTGD to be able to access culturally safe healthcare. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience/PTGD were involved in all stages of this project. They were included on the team as community researchers and co‐developed the research project, conducted the focus groups, participated in the analyses and are co‐authors. As well, both navigators and all the participants in the focus groups were also PTGD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Involving people with lived experience is fundamental to healthcare development and delivery. This is especially true for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) services, where holistic and personalised models of care are becoming increasingly important. There is, however, a significant lack of representation of underserved and diverse groups in IBD research, and there are significant barriers to healthcare access and utilisation among minority groups in IBD. IBD centres need to be aware of these experiences to address barriers via service changes, improve interactions with local communities and promote meaningful engagement for improved health outcomes. Methods: A pragmatic community‐based approach was taken to engage with leaders and members of underserved groups across 11 workshops representing Roma, Afro‐Caribbean, people of African descent and the wider black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, Muslim women, refugee community members, deprived areas of South Yorkshire, LGBTQ+ and deaf populations. Thematic analysis of field notes identified patterns of attention across the community groups and where improvements to services were most frequently suggested. Results: Findings demonstrated several barriers experienced to healthcare access and utilisation, including language accessibility, staff attitudes and awareness, mental health and stigma, continuity of support, and practical factors such as ease of service use and safe spaces. These barriers acted as a lever to co‐producing service changes that are responsive to the health and social care needs of these groups. Conclusions: Engaging with people from a range of communities is imperative for ensuring that service improvements in IBD are accessible and representative of individual needs and values. Patient or Public Contribution: Local community leaders and members of community groups actively participated in the co‐design and development of improvements to the IBD service for a local hospital. Their contributions further informed a pilot process for quality improvement programmes in IBD centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) frequently remain under‐treated in health care settings. Evidence‐based services that lead affected individuals to early guideline‐based care are currently missing. This study aimed to identify the needs of those affected concerning an internet‐based guide. The second aim was to evaluate public and patient involvement (PPI). Methods: Participants experiencing PSS for at least 6 months were recruited via hospitals, psychotherapeutic practices and self‐help organizations. Qualitative data were gathered via ideation discussions and prioritization tasks. Thematic analysis was conducted to gain insight on the needs of people with lived experiences. PPI was quantitatively evaluated with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Results: A total of 12 individuals participated (eight females, ages 22–66 years, duration of symptoms 1–43 years). Participants wanted to feel more supported, validated, in control and engaged with managing their health. Content‐related preferences included education, self‐help, social support and contact addresses. The majority of participants (>90%) experienced their involvement as worthwhile. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies describing PPI in intervention development for PSS. The involvement was perceived as a valuable contribution to the development process. Patient or Public Contribution: Adults with lived experiences were involved at the level of collaboration through the establishment of a participatory research team (PRT) and at the level of consultation through a workshop series, including one of the coauthors. They were involved in developing and validating intervention material and checking data interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiac disease affects an estimated 1%–4% of all pregnancies and is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of data on the healthcare experiences of affected women to inform health service delivery and person‐centred care. This study sought to explore and understand the healthcare experiences of women with cardiac disease in pregnancy and postpartum. Methods: This qualitative study used semi‐structured interviews with women who had cardiac disease in pregnancy or the first 12 months postpartum. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants were 25 women with pre‐existing or newly diagnosed acquired, genetic and congenital cardiac disease. Analysis of the interviews highlighted the discrepancy between care aspirations and experiences. The participants had a wide range of cardiac diseases and timing of diagnoses, but had similar healthcare experiences of being dismissed, not receiving the information they required, lack of continuity of care and clinical guidelines and of feeling out of place within a healthcare system that did not accommodate their combined needs as a mother and a cardiac patient. Conclusion: This study identified a lack of person‐centred care and responsiveness of the healthcare system in providing fit‐for‐purpose healthcare for women with complex disease who are pregnant or new mothers. In particular, cardiac and maternity care providers have an opportunity to listen to women who are the experts on their emergent healthcare needs, contributing to development of the knowledge base on the healthcare experiences of having cardiac disease in pregnancy and postpartum. Patient or Public Contribution: Public and patient input into the value and design of the study was gained through NSW Heart Foundation forums, including the Heart Foundation's women's patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An important—and often missing—element of person‐centred care is the inclusion of individual patients' values and preferences. This is challenging but especially important for high‐burden fertility treatments. We describe the development of a clinical tool that aims to facilitate the delivery of person‐centred fertility care by giving insight into the patients' values and preferences. Methods: We developed the Tell me tool following the three principles of user‐centred design: (1) early and continual focus on users; (2) iterative design; (3) measurement of user behaviour. Accordingly, our methods consisted of three phases: (1) conducting semi‐structured interviews with 18 couples undergoing fertility treatment, followed by a consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders; (2) performing seven iterative improvement rounds; (3) testing the feasibility of the tool in 10 couples. Results: The Tell me tool consists of a ranking assignment of 13 themes and two open‐ended questions. These themes relate to the couples' wellbeing and experience of the treatment, such as mental health and shared decision making. The open‐ended questions ask them to write down what matters most to them. The field test showed variation between the individual patients' answers. The tool proved to highlight what is important to the individual patient and gives insight into patients' personal contexts. Conclusions: We developed a tool that gives insight into the values and preferences of the individual patient. The tool seems feasible for facilitating person‐centred fertility care. Patient or Public Contribution: The tool was developed with a user‐centred design that strongly involved patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for effective health service solutions to provide greater structure and support for implementing evidence‐based practice in back pain care. Patient involvement in developing these solutions is crucial to increase relevance, acceptability and uptake. Objectives: To determine patients' perceived needs and barriers to best‐practice back pain care, and potential solutions to better address care needs. The study is the third in a series of needs assessment studies feeding into the 'idea generation' for service design in a large teaching hospital in a culturally and linguistically diverse community in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Design: We conducted a combination of focus groups and in‐depth interviews using an interpretive description approach. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify the main themes. Setting and Participants: We purposively sampled patients with diverse characteristics from the neurosurgery and physiotherapy outpatient clinics, in particular those whose primary language was English, Arabic, Persian or Mandarin. Non‐English audio recordings were translated and transcribed by bilingual researchers. Results: There were 24 participants (focus groups = 9; individual interviews = 15) when data saturation was reached. The analysis identified three key themes with several subthemes around what service designers needed to understand in helping people with back pain in this setting: (1) This is who I am; (2) It's not working for me; and (3) What I think I need. Discussion and Conclusion: This study highlights that perceived unmet needs of patients are underpinned by unhelpful beliefs about the causes of and solutions for back pain, misaligned care expectations, unclear expectations of the hospital role and fragmentations in the health system. To design and implement a service that can deliver better back pain care, several solutions need to be integrated around: developing new resources that challenge unhelpful beliefs and set realistic expectations; improving access to education and self‐management resources; focusing on individualized care; using a collaborative multidisciplinary approach within the hospital; and better connecting with and directing primary health care services. Patient or Public Contribution: A consumer representative of the Western Sydney Local Health District provided input during study conceptualisation and is duly recognized in the Acknowledgements section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People who experience homelessness have higher dental treatment needs compared to the general population. However, their utilization of dental services and levels of treatment completion are low. Peninsula Dental Social Enterprise, a not‐for‐profit organization in the United Kingdom, established a community dental clinic to improve access to dental care for this population. Objectives: To evaluate the impact and acceptability of the community dental service for patients and examine the barriers and enablers to using and providing the service. Methods: The evaluation included a retrospective assessment of anonymous patient data and thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with patients, support staff and service providers. The interviews were thematically analysed. A cost analysis of the dental service was also conducted. Results: By 18 February 2020, 89 patients had attended the clinic. These included 62 males (70%) and 27 females (30%), aged 38.43 years on average (SD ± 11.07). Of these, 42 (47%) patients have completed their treatment, 23 (26%) are in active treatment and 24 (27%) left treatment. In total, 684 appointments (541.5 hours clinical time) were given. Of these, 82% (562) of appointments were attended (452.5 hours clinical time). The 22 interviews that were conducted identified flexibility, close collaboration with support services and health‐care team attitudes as key factors influencing service utilization and continuity of care. Conclusions: This study provides details of a highly acceptable and accessible dental care model for people experiencing homelessness, with recommendations at research, practice and commissioning levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although many people are satisfied with their outcome after total knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis, around 20% report chronic post‐surgical pain. People are often disappointed and unsure about whether their pain is normal and what can be done about it. Given the high prevalence of long‐term post‐operative pain after knee replacement, there is potentially a large hidden population with an unaddressed need for care. Objective: In this study, we focus on understanding why some people choose not to consult health care for chronic post‐surgical pain after knee replacement. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with people who had received total knee replacement, at either of two National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom, and who had chronic post‐surgical pain (n = 34, age 55‐93 years). Data were audio‐recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: We found an overall sense of futility amongst participants who believed that nothing further could be done for their on‐going pain. People's perception of their pain was often discordant with that of surgeons and physicians. Other factors that contributed to decisions not to seek help included low expectations about effectiveness and the risks involved in further treatment, treatment burden, participants' prioritization of other health conditions and views about candidacy. Many accepted their on‐going pain. Conclusion: Our study indicates why some people with chronic pain after knee replacement do not seek further health care. Understanding patients' beliefs and expectations about chronic post‐surgical pain can inform approaches that might enable people to seek help in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: People with chronic conditions who are often in contact with the health‐care system are well placed to reflect on how services meet their needs. Some research characterizes people who use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) as a distinct group who opt out of the mainstream health system. However, many CAM users are people with chronic or terminal health conditions who concurrently use mainstream health‐care services. The difference in perspectives between people with chronic conditions who do or do not use CAM has received little attention by researchers. Objective: To explore the views of CAM users with chronic conditions and identify their perspectives on the health system. Design and Setting: In‐depth interviews and a self‐administered questionnaire were used to collect data on care‐seeking, self‐management and CAM use among people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease living in Victoria, Australia. Results: One in four CAM practitioner users was partly motivated to use CAM as a result of their dissatisfaction with the mainstream health system. In general, their dissatisfaction mirrored the concerns of the general population. This included the perceived lack of a humanistic or person‐centred approach, which was central to problems relating to individuals' clinical encounters as well as to health system design. Discussion and Conclusion: Participants' concerns suggest room for improvement in the Australian health system to better reflect patients' needs. A systems approach is needed to reorient health‐care practitioners to modify the organization of care because of the incentives embedded in the structure of the health‐care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]