Search

Background: People with Parkinson's disease (PD) do not always access specialist outpatient services in a timely manner in Ireland. The perspectives of people living with PD, relating to service access, are largely absent in the existing literature. Aim: To explore experiences of PD service access for people living with PD, using a qualitative approach. Methods: Purposive maximum variation sampling was used. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 service users, including people with PD (n = 22) and supporting carers (n = 3). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Interviews ranged in duration from 30 to 90 min. Data were managed in NVivo 12 and interpreted inductively using thematic analysis. The researchers were reflexive throughout the research process. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was employed to maximise transparency. Results: The findings highlight several key barriers to and facilitators of equitable and timely service access. Three key themes were identified comprising experiences of PD service access including 'geographical inequity', 'discriminatory practices', and 'public and private system deficits'. Together, these themes illustrate how a two‐tiered and under‐resourced health system lacks capacity, in terms of infrastructure and workforce, to meet PD needs for both public and private patients in Ireland. Conclusions: These findings point to problems for PD care, relating to (i) how the health system is structured, (ii) the under‐provision and under‐resourcing of specialist outpatient PD services, including medical, nursing, and multidisciplinary posts, and (iii) insufficient PD awareness education and training across health settings. The findings also show that telemedicine can provide opportunities for making access to certain aspects of PD care more flexible and equitable, but the feasibility and acceptability of technology‐enabled care must be assessed on an individual basis. Implications for policy, practice and research are discussed. Patient or Public Contribution: The design and conduct of this study were supported by an expert advisory group (EAG) of 10 co‐researchers living with PD. The EAG reviewed the interview schedule and the protocol for this study and provided detailed feedback from their perspective, to improve the methods, including the interview approach. The group also reviewed the findings of the study and contributed their insights on the meaning of the findings, which fed into this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision‐making has been shown to improve the quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients in high‐literacy and high‐resource settings. However, limited studies have examined the cultural preferences of metastatic breast cancer patients with shared decision‐making implementation and the barriers encountered in an Asian setting where societal norms predominate and physician decision‐making is at the forefront. This paper aims to identify (1) barriers to practising shared decision‐making faced by healthcare professionals and patients and (2) strategies for implementing shared decision‐making in the context of metastatic breast cancer management in Malaysia. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, 16 healthcare professionals and 5 policymakers from surgical and oncology departments at public healthcare centres in Malaysia. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach. Nvivo software was used to manage and analyse the data. Results: Five main themes emerged from the study: healthcare provider–patient communication, workforce availability, cultural and belief systems, goals of care and paternalism versus autonomy. Other strategies proposed to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision‐making were training of healthcare professionals and empowering nurses to manage patients' psychosocial issues. Conclusion: This study found that practising shared decision‐making in the public health sector remains challenging when managing patients with metastatic breast cancer. The utilization of decision‐making tools, patient empowerment and healthcare provider training may help address the system and healthcare provider–patient barriers identified in this study. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients were involved in the study design, recruitment and analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critical care bed capacity per capita in Ireland is among the lowest in Europe. The COVID‐19 pandemic has put additional strain on an over‐stretched healthcare system. COVID‐19 community assessment hubs (CAHs) were established to prevent unnecessary admission to acute hospitals and to reduce infection spread. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of CAHs and identify how the service might be improved or adapted for possible future use. Design: This was a mixed methods study, incorporating co‐design with clinical stakeholders. Data collection was via an online survey and semistructured telephone interviews with staff and patients conducted between January and May 2021. Setting and participants: Thirty‐one patients completed the survey and nine were interviewed. Twenty interviews were conducted with staff. Results: The findings suggest that the CAH model was successful in providing a dedicated pathway for assessing patients with COVID‐19 symptoms, whilst mitigating the risk of infection. Patients were particularly positive about the timely, comprehensive and holistic care they received, as well as the accessibility of the clinics and the friendly attitudes of the staff. Staff welcomed the training and clinical protocols which contributed to their feelings of safety and competency in delivering care to this cohort of patients. They also highlighted the benefits of working in a multidisciplinary environment. Both staff and patients felt that the hubs could be repurposed for alternative use, including the treatment of chronic diseases. Discussion: This study describes staff and patients' experiences of these hubs. An unexpected outcome of this study is its demonstration of the true value of effective multidisciplinary working, not only for the staff who were deployed to this service but also for the patients in receipt of care in these hubs. Conclusion: This multidisciplinary patient‐centred service may provide a useful model for the delivery of other services currently delivered in hospital settings. Patient or Public Contribution: An earlier phase of this study involved interviews with COVID‐19‐positive patients on a remote monitoring programme. The data informed this phase. Several of the authors had worked in the CAHs and provided valuable input into the design of the staff and patient interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long Covid is an emerging long‐term condition, with those affected raising concerns about lack of healthcare support. Objective: We conducted a qualitative study to identify facilitators and barriers to healthcare access for people with Long Covid, aiming to enhance our understanding of the specific nature of these barriers and how patient experiences may vary. Setting and Participants: In the context of the Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long‐COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways (STIMULATE‐ICP) Delphi study, a nationally distributed online survey was conducted. Eight patients and eight healthcare practitioners (HCP) were interviewed via telephone or video call. Framework analysis, sensitised by the candidacy theory, was used to identify barriers and facilitators over four levels of access to care. Results: Three themes were identified: (i) patients' efforts to navigate emerging pathways for Long Covid, (ii) the patient–HCP interaction and (iii) service resources and structural constraints. Barriers to specialist care included long waiting times, communication gaps across services and a lack of continuity in care. Facilitators included collaborative, patient‐centred approaches, patients' active role in their healthcare and blended approaches for appointments. The perspectives of both patients and HCPs largely aligned. Discussion: The candidacy framework was valuable in understanding the experiences of people with Long Covid seeking access to healthcare. Individuals perceived themselves as eligible for care, but they often encountered obstacles in obtaining the expected level of care or, in some cases, did not receive it at all. Our findings are discussed in the context of the candidacy model through multiple processes of identification, negotiation, permeability and appearances at health services. These themes seem to be especially important for the emerging new pathway model and are relevant to both primary and secondary care. Conclusions: This study highlights that despite these interviews being conducted two years after the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic, people with Long Covid still struggle to access healthcare, emphasising the ongoing need to provide equitable timely healthcare access for people with Long Covid. Patient or Public Contribution: People with Long Covid advised on all stages of this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited research on what, when and how outcomes should be measured in psychological therapy trials in acute mental health inpatient wards. Objectives: This study aimed to consider what outcomes service users think are important to measure. Methods: This qualitative study explored the views of 14 participants, who had an inpatient admission within the last year, on outcomes of psychological therapies using semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis from a critical realist perspective with both inductive and deductive coding. Results: The 126 outcomes that were important to participants were mapped onto an established taxonomy of outcomes across different health areas and the socioecological framework to consider the wider context and help summarise the outcomes. Most of the outcomes were mapped to the intrapersonal and interpersonal level. In addition to the outcome mapping, three themes were constructed from the qualitative data: (1) I am not a problem I am a person, (2) Feeling cared for and loved, (3) What does getting better look like. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for patient‐reported outcomes which are cocreated with service users, disseminating research and training on preventing dehumanising experiences, enhancing psychological safety and therapeutic relationships and improving access to psychological therapy. Patient or Public Contribution: The wider People with Personal Experience Involvement Committee at the University of Bath were consulted which included a focus group during the early planning stages. We also collaborated with a person with personal experience, at every stage of the research. This included developing our research question and aims, protocol, participant documents (e.g., information and debrief forms), advertisement and recruitment strategy, interview topic guide, the codes, the final themes and quotes and reviewing the manuscript. People with lived experience of being admitted to an acute mental health inpatient ward participated in our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is increasingly being legalised internationally. In Australia, all six states have now passed such laws, with Victoria being the first in 2019. However, early research in Victoria on the patient experience of seeking VAD shows that finding a connection to the VAD system is challenging. This study analyses the causes of this 'point of access' barrier. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured qualitative interviews with family caregivers and a person seeking VAD, with participants recruited via social media and patient interest groups. Data were thematically analysed. We also undertook documentary analysis (content and thematic) of publicly available reports from the oversight body, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board. Results: We interviewed 32 family caregivers and one patient across 28 interviews and analysed six Board reports. Finding a point of access to the VAD system was reported as challenging in both interviews and reports. Four specific barriers to connecting with the system were identified: (1) not knowing VAD exists as a legal option; (2) not recognising a person is potentially eligible for VAD; (3) not knowing next steps or not being able to achieve them in practice; and (4) challenges with patients being required to raise the topic of VAD because doctors are legally prohibited from doing so. Conclusion: Legal, policy and practice changes are needed to facilitate patients being able to find a connection to the VAD system. The legal prohibition on doctors raising the topic of VAD should be repealed, and doctors and institutions who do not wish to be involved in VAD should be required to connect patients with appropriate contacts within the system. Community awareness initiatives are needed to enhance awareness of VAD, especially given it is relatively new in Victoria. Patient or Public Contribution: Families and a patient were the focus of this research and interviews with them about the experience of seeking VAD were the primary source of data analysed. This article includes their solutions to address the identified point of access barriers. Patient interest groups also supported the recruitment of participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early detection of symptoms and prompt diagnosis of ovarian cancer are considered important avenues for improving patient experiences and outcomes. Methods: This qualitative study used a phenomenological approach to perform patient interviews, collecting individual accounts of the prediagnostic phase in women diagnosed and treated for ovarian cancer in 2016–2017. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a diverse sample of 24 participants, while thematic content analysis was used to extract themes and subthemes from interview data. Results: Three themes and nine subthemes were identified. The first theme was women's delay in recognizing symptoms and seeking care, with subthemes on the lack of knowledge about early signs of ovarian cancer, gender‐related barriers and false reassurance from negative test results. A second theme was missed opportunities during healthcare encounters, due to misattribution of women's symptoms by their physicians, underestimation of symptom severity and need for mediation and inadequate tests and/or false negative results. Finally, interviews highlighted the use of resources and alternative healthcare pathways, including complementary/alternative medicines, access to private health care and women's capacity for action and decision‐making (agency) about their health. Conclusion: Delayed diagnosis of ovarian cancer is rooted in both individual factors (lack of health literacy, reluctance to seek care) and systemic issues (missed opportunities in healthcare encounters, access to timely specialist care). Further research is needed to investigate the extent to which traditional gender roles and socioeconomic inequalities condition women's ability to manage their own health and to interact with health professionals and the health system. Patient and Public Contribution: In addition to the patient participation during the interviews, one author was a representative of a patient association. [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]