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]

Background: Children with medical complexity (CMC) often face significant barriers to accessing care, obtaining appropriate insurance coverage for medical devices, technology, supplies, home nursing and social services. These challenges, when viewed through the lens of social determinants of health, highlight concerns about healthcare inequity. These inequities can impact CMC by limiting access to follow‐up appointments, leading to disproportionate use of emergency department services, restricting support services, reducing the quality of medical products and increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Addressing these concerns requires comprehensive policy changes at both state and federal levels. Achieving successful collaborations between states and federal agencies is particularly challenging and may take months or even years to accomplish. Objectives: Through an exploratory qualitative approach, this study facilitates a nuanced inquiry into the experiences and systemic challenges encountered by medical professionals and primary caregivers managing CMC who require a paediatric tracheostomy. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 health professionals and primary caregivers residing in the United States. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcribed interview data. Results: Using exploratory thematic analysis, we identified challenges and opportunities for improvement regarding (a) access to health insurance, (b) procurement of essential medical supplies, (c) logistical constraints and (d) identifying interim solutions. Conclusion: Building on our findings, we discuss how socioecological factors impact health and quality of life of CMC and families. Additionally, we address the growing gap in quality of care through a comprehensive approach that considers patient needs, regulatory frameworks and affordability. Patient or Public Contribution: Medical practitioners and healthcare professionals were actively involved in the development, production and implementation of the research project. These individuals were given the opportunity to review their statements and review the manuscript before publishing. While caregivers did not engage in member checking, each provided their consent before data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Supported (assisted) healthcare decision‐making (ADM) focuses attention on how people with disabilities, including cognitive impairments, can be best supported to make decisions about their health and social care on an equitable basis with others. Meaningful implementation of legal frameworks for ADM challenges long‐held presumptions about who has access to valued decision‐making resources, influence and power within a particular socio‐cultural setting. This study aims to explore the relational power dynamics around ADM with older people in acute care settings. Methods: This study adopts a critical hermeneutic approach to qualitatively explore the lived experience of ADM from the perspectives of Health and Social Care Professionals (N = 26). This is supported by an exploration of the experiences of older people (N = 4), older people with a diagnosis of dementia (N = 4) and family carers (N = 5). Results: We present three themes of data analysis that represent three spaces where the relational aspects of power in ADM are manifested. The first space, centralising decision‐making power within multidisciplinary teams identified the privileging of physicians in traditional hierarchical leadership models that may lead to the implicit exclusion of family carers and some Health and Social Care Professionals in the ADM process. Privileging cognitive and communication competence identified a tendency to attribute decision‐making autonomy to those with cognitive and communication competency. The final space, balancing the duty of care and individual autonomy, recognises acute care settings as typically risk‐averse cultures that limit autonomy for decisions that carry risk, especially for those with cognitive impairment. Conclusion: Findings indicate the need to address cultural sources of power operating through social norms premised on ageist and ableist ideologies. It is necessary to challenge institutional barriers to meaningful ADM including positional power that is associated with hierarchies of influence and protectionism. Finally, meaningful ADM requires resistance to the disempowerment created by structural, economic and social circumstances which limit choices for decision‐making. Patient or Public Contribution: A public and patient involvement panel of older people were consulted in the development of the grant application (HRB: APA‐2016‐1878). Representatives from Alzheimer's Society Ireland and Family Carers Ireland were steering committee members guiding design and strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]