Search

Background: Globally, it is estimated that one in three adults live with two or more long‐term conditions (multiple long‐term conditions, MLTCs), that require self‐management. People who experience socioeconomic deprivation face significant health inequalities due to a range of interrelated characteristics that lead to a lack of resources and opportunities. Previous research with underserved populations indicate low levels of trust towards primary care providers and potential barriers for developing patient‐healthcare professional relationships. The purpose of this paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to self‐managing MLTCs, amongst people who experience socioeconomic deprivation. Methods: Semistructured one‐to‐one interviews with adults (n = 28) living in London and Sheffield, United Kingdom with MLTCs who are experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Participants were recruited through general practices, community channels and social media. Data were analysed in NVivo using reflexive thematic analysis methods. Findings: Four analytical themes were developed: (1) challenges in accessing healthcare services, financial assistance, and cultural awareness; (2) empowerment and disempowerment through technology, including digital exclusion, and use of technology; (3) impact and causes of exclusion on self‐management, including social isolation, area‐based and economic exclusion, and health‐related stigma and (4) adapting self‐management strategies, including cost‐effective, and culturally/lifestyle appropriate strategies. Conclusions: Future health interventions and services need to be developed with consideration of the combined complexities of managing MLTCs while experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Increased awareness in practitioners and commissioners of the complexities surrounding the lives of people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation, and the need for targeted strategies to promote self‐management of MLTCs are of great importance. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group contributed to all stages of the study, including providing important feedback on study documents (topic guides and recruitment materials), as well as providing critical insights surrounding the interpretation of interview data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This work describes a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set originally used to understand parent participants' preferences for the design and implementation of a screening programme for paediatric Type 1 diabetes (T1D). From this, their spontaneous preferences for peer support emerged, described here in the context of existing peer support programmes for the newly diagnosed alongside suggestions for their incorporation into screening programmes for T1D and a range of other conditions. Methods: Data were collected from semi‐structured interviews conducted with parents of children aged 3–13 years to explore their expectations, perceptions and preferences of a T1D paediatric screening programme. A secondary analysis of interviews from participants who spontaneously raised preferences for peer support was used to populate a novel framework informed by NHS England's key principles for the same, namely, Shared experiences and reciprocated support, Accessibility and inclusivity and Person‐centred and integrated peer support. Results: Parents in 29 of 33 interviews spontaneously described the potential value of peer support if receiving a result indicating a positive (presymptomatic T1D result) from a screening programme. Specifically, the value of 'Shared experiences and reciprocated support' in terms of emotional support and reassurance, and access to more directly interpretable and relevant information related to the condition; 'Accessibility and inclusivity' relating to access to a community of similar individuals, whether in person or online; 'Person‐centred and integrated peer‐support' and the need for support reflecting the changing need of the child and the integration of peer support with clinical care. Conclusions: The needs of peer support described by parents involved in T1D paediatric screening appear to be shared with those of families with children diagnosed with a range of life‐altering conditions. Although the needs of peer support for paediatric screening may differ across conditions, our findings are a valuable starting point for its design both in T1D and other examples of similar population screening programmes. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and the public have been involved throughout the design of the ELSA study and have worked with us to inform the study process. They contributed to the design and content of patient‐facing materials, the content of our topic guides and the analysis and interpretation of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Head and neck cancer (HNC) is the eighth most common cancer in the United Kingdom. Survival rates improve when the cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, highlighting a key need to identify at‐risk patients. This study aimed to explore opportunistic HNC identification and referral by community pharmacists (CPs) using a symptom‐based risk assessment calculator, from the perspective of patients with a diagnosis of HNC. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit patients from the HNC pathway in three large teaching hospitals in Northern England. Qualitative methodology was used to collect data through an iterative series of semistructured telephone interviews. Framework analysis was utilised to identify key themes. Results: Four main themes were constructed through the analytic process: (1) HNC presentation and seeking help; (2) the role of the CP; (3) public perception of HNC and (4) the role of a symptom‐based risk calculator. Participants agreed that CPs could play a role in the identification and referral of suspected HNCs, but there were concerns about access as patients frequently only encounter the medicine counter assistant when they visit the pharmacy. HNC symptoms are frequently attributed to common or minor conditions initially and therefore considered not urgent, leading to delays in seeking help. While there is public promotion for some cancers, there is little known about HNC. Early presentation of HNC can be quite variable, therefore raising awareness would help. The use of a symptom‐based risk calculator was considered beneficial if it enabled earlier referral and diagnosis. Participants suggested that it would also be useful if the public were made aware of it and could self‐assess their symptoms. Conclusion: In principle, CPs could play a role in the identification and referral of HNC, but there was uncertainty as to how the intervention would work. Future research is needed to develop an intervention that would facilitate earlier identification and referral of HNC while not disrupting CP work and that would promote HNC and the risk calculator more widely. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was integrated throughout the project. Initially, the proposal was discussed during a Cancer Head and Neck Group Experience (CHANGE) PPIE meeting. CHANGE was set up to support HNC research in 2018. The group is composed of seven members (four female, three male) with an age range of 50–71 years, who were diagnosed at Sunderland Royal Hospital. A patient representative from the University of Sunderland PPIE group and a trustee of the Northern HNC Charity were recruited as co‐applicants. They attended project management group meetings and reviewed patient‐facing documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In 2020 England moved to an opt‐out deceased donation law. We aimed to investigate the views of a mixed stakeholder group comprising people with kidney disease, family members and healthcare practitioners towards the change in legislation. We investigated the expected impacts of the new legislation on deceased‐donor and living‐donor transplantation, and views on media campaigns regarding the law change. Methods: We undertook in‐depth qualitative interviews with people with kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4) and healthcare practitioners (n = 15). Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity for patients and healthcare practitioners. Family members were recruited through snowball sampling and posters. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes with six subthemes were identified: (i) Expectations of impact (Hopeful patients; Cautious healthcare professionals), (ii) Living‐donor transplantation (Divergent views; Unchanged clinical recommendations), (iii) Media campaigns (Single message; Highlighting recipient benefits). Patients expected the law change would result in more deceased‐donor transplant opportunities. Conclusions: Clinicians should ensure patients and families are aware of the current evidence regarding the impact of opt‐out consent: expectations of an increased likelihood of receiving a deceased‐donor transplant are not currently supported by the evidence. This may help to prevent a decline in living‐donor transplantation seen in other countries with similar legislation. Media campaigns should include a focus on the impact of organ receipt. Patient or Public Contribution: Two patient representatives from the Kidney Disease Health Integration Team, Primrose Granville and Soumeya Bouacida, contributed to the content and design of the study documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]