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]

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]

Introduction: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. Methods: We used a two‐stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third‐sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. Results: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. Conclusion: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. Patient or Public Contribution: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The adoption of remote healthcare methods has been accelerated by the COVID‐19 pandemic, but evidence suggests that some patients need additional support to engage remotely, potentially increasing health disparities if needs are not met. This study of COVID‐19 remote home monitoring services across England explores experiences of and engagement with the service across different patient groups. Methods: This was a mixed‐methods study with survey and interview data collected from 28 services across England between February and June 2021. Surveys were conducted with staff and patients and carers receiving the service. Interviews with staff service leads, patients and carers were conducted in 17 sites. Quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Survey responses were received from 292 staff and 1069 patients and carers. Twenty‐three staff service leads, 59 patients and 3 carers were interviewed. Many service leads reported that they had considered inclusivity when adapting the service for their local population; strategies included widening the eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups and creating referral pathways. However, disparities were reported across patient groups in their experiences and engagement. Older patients reported the service to be less helpful (p = 0.004), were more likely to report a problem (p < 0.001) and had more difficulty in understanding information (p = 0.005). Health status (p = 0.004), ethnicity (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001) and employment (p = 0.007) were associated with differential engagement with monitoring, and minority ethnic groups reported more difficulty understanding service information (p = 0.001). Qualitative data found illness severity to be an important factor in the support required, and patients' living situation and social network affected whether they found the service reassuring. Conclusion: Addressing health disparities must be a key focus in the design and delivery of remote care. Services should be tailored to match the needs of their local population, encourage access through collaboration and referral pathways with other services and monitor their inclusiveness. Involving patients and staff in service design can illuminate the diversity of patients' needs and experiences of care. Patient or Public Contribution: The study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and dissemination activities. Study documents (such as consent forms, topic guides, surveys and information sheets) were reviewed by PPI members; patient surveys and interview guides were piloted, and members also commented on the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There have been some concerns about the impact of temporary doctors, otherwise known as locums, on patient safety and the quality of care. Despite these concerns, research has paid little attention to the implications of locum working on patient experience. Methods: A qualitative semi‐structured interview study was conducted with 130 participants including locums, people working with locums and patients with experience of being seen or treated by locums. Analysis was conducted using a reflexive thematic approach and abductive analysis to position themes against wider knowledge. Results: Three main themes were constructed through analysis: (1) Awareness and disclosure; patients were not always aware if their doctor was a locum, and there was some debate about whether patients had a right to know, particularly if locum working presented quality and safety risks. (2) Continuity and accessibility of care; access was regarded as priority for acute conditions, but for long‐term or serious conditions, patients preferred to see a permanent doctor who knew their history, although it was acknowledged that locums could provide fresh perspectives. (3) Communication and practice; locums and patients described how consultations were approached differently when doctors worked as locums. Patients evaluated their interactions based on how safe they felt with practitioners. Conclusion: Patients reported that they were unlikely to have continuity of care with any doctors delivering care, regardless of their contractual status. Locums sometimes provided new perspectives on care which could be beneficial for patient outcomes, but for patients with long‐term, complex or serious conditions continuity of care was important, and these patients may avoid or delay seeking care when locums are the only available option. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and carers were involved in our study from inception to dissemination. Our Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) forum was involved throughout project design and planning and gave us feedback and guidance on research materials and outputs (e.g., study protocol, participant information sheets, survey tools, interview schedules, emerging findings). Our PPI forum co‐produced our patient interview schedule, two members of our PPI forum led the patient focus groups and all were involved in analysis of patient interviews. Our PPI Chair was involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public. Objective: This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk‐based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Study Design: Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint‐analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Participants: Twenty participants based in England aged 40–79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise. Results: When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age‐alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non‐personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision‐making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out. Conclusion: Risk‐stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes. Patient or Public Contribution: The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision‐making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. Aim: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. Methods: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider‐facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient‐facing SDM tool. Results: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient‐facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient–provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Social prescribing offers a formal pathway of connecting patients in the health system with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well‐being. Since its launch in March 2022, the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing has acted as a collective impact network to identify, connect and build upon established social prescribing initiatives using a co‐design methodology. The institute received input from a participant advisory council, co‐design partners and several communities of interest groups. This study aimed to describe the perceptions of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing's role in advancing social prescribing using a co‐design approach and the barriers and facilitators to implementing social prescribing in Canada. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive study design, document analysis, participant observation and semi‐structured individual interviews (n = 7) with members of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing co‐design group and the institute's leadership. We also analysed documents, field notes and transcripts using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were developed representing the facilitators of implementing the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing to support social prescribing: Creating relational mechanisms (i.e., partnerships and connections), Bringing awareness to social prescribing and contributing to the evidence (i.e., values and beliefs), Addressing systemic conditions (i.e., having a common language for social prescribing and organizing the community health sector) and Enabling funding and policy to drive social prescribing initiatives (i.e., shifting evidence into policy and securing sustainable funding). Conclusion: Participants' reflections on the co‐design process demonstrated that the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing development provided networking opportunities and shared resources relevant to social prescribing. Co‐design efforts also fostered relational and informational support, which laid the necessary groundwork in Canada to overcome the complex interplay between the macro‐ and micro‐level settings in which social prescribing is practiced. Patient or Public Contribution: The interviews and observations involved participants with lived experience of delivering, receiving or advocating for social prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite significant advances in the management of lung cancer, patients continue to experience a high burden of unmet need impacting quality of life and outcomes of care. Achieving value‐based health care, where investment is targeted to services that deliver optimal experience and outcomes of care relative to the cost of delivering that care, requires attention to what people value most in meeting their needs. To date there has been little attention to what matters most to patients with lung cancer (i.e., what they value) as a component of achieving value‐based cancer care. This qualitative study was undertaken to investigate components of care valued by people with lung cancer in Australia. Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with 23 people with lung cancer. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy from two metropolitan tertiary public health services. Data collected included demographic characteristics and patient perspectives regarding their priority concerns and components of care identified as most valuable in meeting their needs. Demographic characteristics of participants were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed thematically using Interpretive Description. Results: Data analysis generated three key themes: valued components of care; benefits of receiving valued care components and consequences of missed opportunities for care. The components of care valued by patients reflect the core dimensions of cancer supportive care, with particular emphasis on ongoing opportunities for consultation (screening for unmet needs) and provision of person‐centred information. The facilitation of trust between patients and their treating team, as a consequence of having these valued components evident in their care, was identified as a key characteristic of value‐based care. Conclusions: This study has identified valued components of care described by people with lung cancer. Importantly, the care components identified have been proven to improve access to and coordination of care, and demonstrate the importance of integrating supportive care into care provision to achieve value‐based cancer care. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was informed by perspectives of lung cancer patients who participated in semistructured interviews. We acknowledge that this contribution does not meet the criteria for patient and public involvement in research as defined by Health Expectations, but this study forms part of a larger program of cancer supportive care work being undertaken by this team, where comprehensive consumer engagement and co‐design approaches are embedded in our work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID‐19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. Method: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank‐ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID‐19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. Results: A four‐factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. Conclusion: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID‐19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of the statement set, which is rank‐ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID‐19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. Aim: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. Design: A qualitative study was carried out using semi‐structured telephone interviews. Setting: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). Method: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. Results: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. Conclusion: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. Patient or Public Contribution: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co‐applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co‐applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision‐making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the United Kingdom, fractures of the cervical dens process in older and/or frail patients are usually managed nonsurgically in a hard collar. However, hard collars can lead to complications and this management approach is now being questioned, with growing interest in maximising patients' short‐term quality‐of‐life. It is vital that patients' perspectives are considered; yet, there is a dearth of literature examining the aspect. To help inform wider decision‐making about use of collar/no collar management of dens fractures in older/frail people, we explored older/frail people's experience of the two management approaches and how they affected their perceived quality‐of‐life. Methods: We interviewed older and/or frail adults with a recent dens fracture (aged ≥65 years or with a clinical frailty score of ≥5) or their caregiver. Participants were recruited from both arms of a clinical trial comparing management using a hard collar for 12 weeks (SM) with early removal of the collar (ERC) and were interviewed following randomisation and again, 12–16 weeks later. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Both participant groups (SM/ERC) reported substantial, negative quality‐of‐life (QoL) experiences, with the fall itself and lack of access to care services and information being frequent major contributory factors. Many negative experiences cut across both participant groups, including pain, fatigue, diminished autonomy and reduced involvement in personally meaningful activities. However, we identified some subtle, yet discernible, ways in which using SM/ERC reinforced or alleviated (negative) QoL impacts, with the perceived benefits/burdens to using SM/ERC varying between different individuals. Conclusion: Study findings can be used to support informed decision‐making about SM/ERC management of dens fractures in older/frail patients. Patient or Public Contribution: Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the study design, development of interview topic guides and interpretation of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Design thinking is an iterative process that innovates solutions through a person‐centric approach and is increasingly used across health contexts. The person‐centric approach lends itself to working with groups with complex needs. One such group is families experiencing economic hardship, who are vulnerable to food insecurity and face challenges with child feeding. Objective: This study describes the application of a design thinking framework, utilizing mixed methods, including co‐design, to develop a responsive child‐feeding intervention for Australian families—'Eat, Learn, Grow'. Methods: Guided by the five stages of design thinking, which comprises empathizing, defining, ideating, prototyping, and testing. We engaged with parents/caregivers of a child aged 6 months to 3 years through co‐design workshops (n = 13), direct observation of mealtimes (n = 10), a cross‐sectional survey (n = 213) and semistructured interviews (n = 29). Findings across these methods were synthesized using affinity mapping to clarify the intervention parameters. Parent user testing (n = 12) was conducted online with intervention prototypes to determine acceptability and accessibility. A co‐design workshop with child health experts (n = 9) was then undertaken to review and co‐design content for the final intervention. Results: Through the design thinking process, an innovative digital child‐feeding intervention was created. This intervention utilized a mobile‐first design and consisted of a series of short and interactive modules that used a learning technology tool. The design is based on the concept of microlearning and responds to participants' preferences for visual, brief and plain language information accessed via a mobile phone. User testing sessions with parents and the expert co‐design workshop indicated that the intervention was highly acceptable. Conclusions: Design thinking encourages researchers to approach problems creatively and to design health interventions that align with participant needs. Applying mixed methods—including co‐design— within this framework allows for a better understanding of user contexts, preferences and priorities, ensuring solutions are more acceptable and likely to be engaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. Methods: An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE‐ICP Collaboration. Findings: Twenty‐three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self‐doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. Conclusion: We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Best practice guidelines for the recovery and return to work (RTW) of people with mental disorders recommend access to the services of an interdisciplinary team combining pharmacological, psychological and work rehabilitation interventions. In the Canadian context, primary healthcare services are responsible for providing these services for people with common mental disorders, such as depressive or anxiety disorders. However, not everyone has easy access to these recommended primary healthcare services, and previous studies suggest that multiple personal, practice‐related and organizational factors can influence the patient's journey. Moreover, previous studies documented that family physicians often work in silos and lack the knowledge and time needed to effectively manage by themselves patients' occupational health. Thus, the care and service trajectories of these patients are often suboptimal and can have important consequences on the person's recovery and RTW. Objective and Population Studied: Our study aimed to gain a better understanding of the patient journeys and the factors influencing their access to and experience with primary healthcare services while they were on sick leave due to a common mental disorder. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research design was used to understand and describe these factors. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the verbatim. Results: Five themes describe the main factors that influenced the patient's journey of the 14 participants of this study: (1) the fragmented interventions provided by family physicians; (2) patients' autonomy in managing their own care; (3) the attitude and case management provided by the insurer, (4) the employer's openness and understanding and (5) the match between the person's needs and their access to psychosocial and rehabilitation services. Conclusions: Our findings highlight important gaps in the collaborative practices surrounding the management of mental health‐related sick leave, the coordination of primary healthcare services and the access to work rehabilitation services. Occupational therapists and other professionals can support family physicians in managing sick leaves, strengthen interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration and ensure that patients receive needed services in a timelier manner no matter their insurance coverage or financial needs. Patients of Public Contribution: This study aimed at looking into the perspective of people who have lived or are currently experiencing a sick leave related to a mental health disorder to highlight the factors which they feel hindered their recovery and RTW. Additionally, two patient partners were involved in this study and are now engaged in the dissemination of the research results and the pursuit of our team research programme to improve services delivered to this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is a growing consensus that children and young people (CYP) should be involved in matters that concern them. Progress is made in involving CYP in developing pediatric research agendas (PRAs), although the impact of their involvement remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs and assess the extent to which postpatient and public involvement (post‐PPI) activities were planned. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using in‐depth interviews to identify and gain an in‐depth understanding of the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs. The transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti to be coded and organised. Dutch‐language interviews were analysed and interpreted together with vocational education and training (VET) students. These students were aged between 14 and 18 years and were training to become nurses. Results: Three CYP and 15 researchers decided to participate. We focused on three categories of impact: agenda‐setting impact, individual impact and academic impact. Involving CYP creates a more enriched and clarified agenda. It ensured that both CYP and researchers underwent personal or professional growth and development, it created a connection between the people involved, awareness about the importance of involving CYP and it ensured that the people involved had a positive experience. The participants were unable to indicate the academic impact of their PRAs, but they did understand the key factors for creating it. In addition, the need to measure impact was highlighted, with a particular focus on assessing individual impact. Discussion: Our study outlines the diverse subthemes of impact that arise from involving CYP in developing PRAs. Despite the potential of research agendas to amplify CYP voices, only a minority of researchers strategized post‐PPI activities ensuring impactful outcomes, prompting the need for thorough evaluation of various impact forms and consistent alignment with the overarching goal of transforming the research field. Patient or Public Contribution: We involved VET students in the data analysis and interpretation phase by forming a young person advisory group. The data analysis of the interviews analysed by the VET students revealed four distinct themes: 1. Learnt new knowledge. 2. Learnt to collaborate. 3. Learnt to listen. 4. Assessment of the individual impact. [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]

Introduction: The transition from hospital to home is often suboptimal, resulting in patients not receiving the necessary allied healthcare after discharge. This may, in turn, lead to delayed recovery, a higher number of readmissions, more emergency department visits and an increase in mortality and healthcare costs. This study aimed to gain insight into patients' experiences, perceptions, and needs regarding hospital‐to‐home transition, focusing on allied healthcare as a first step towards the development of a transitional integrated allied healthcare pathway for patients with complex care needs after hospital discharge. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with patients. Participants were recruited from universities and general hospitals in the Amsterdam region between May and July 2023. They were eligible if they (1) were discharged from the hospital minimally 3 and maximally 12 months after admission to an oncologic surgery department, internal medicine department, intensive care unit, or trauma centre, (2) received hospital‐based care from at least one allied healthcare provider, who visited the patient at least twice during hospital admission, (3) spoke Dutch or English and (4) were 18 years or older. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed a thematic analysis of the interview data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the analysis. 'Allied healthcare support during transition' depicts patients' positive experiences when they felt supported by allied health professionals during the hospital‐to‐home transition. 'Patient and family involvement' illustrates how much patients value the involvement of their family members during discharge planning. 'Information recall and processing' portrays the challenges of understanding and remembering overwhelming amounts of information, sometimes unclear and provided at the wrong moment. Overall, patients' experiences of transitional care were positive when they were involved in the discharge process. Negative experiences occurred when their preferences for postdischarge communication were ignored. Conclusions: This study suggests that allied health professionals need to continuously collaborate and communicate with each other to provide patients and their families with the personalized support they need. To provide high‐quality and person‐centred care, it is essential to consider how, when, and what information to provide to patients and their families to allow them to contribute to their recovery actively. Patient or Public Contribution: The interview guide for this manuscript was developed with the assistance of patients, who reviewed it and provided us with feedback. Furthermore, patients provided us with their valuable lived experiences by participating in the interviews conducted for this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness. Methods: We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision‐making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire. Results: A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self‐awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self‐efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20‐item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting. Conclusion: We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM. The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice. Patient or Public Contribution: Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global migration has led to a sharp increase in the number of language‐discordant consultations (LDCs) in healthcare. Evidence on how healthcare providers (HCPs) meet migrant patients' needs while mitigating language barriers is lacking. Design: Using purposive and snowball sampling, we recruited twenty‐seven Dutch HCPs (Mage = 45.07, SD = 11.46) and conducted semi‐structured interviews to collect qualitative, open‐ended data for identifying the communication strategies used with migrant patients in LDCs. We analysed the transcripts using deductive and inductive approaches (e.g., constant comparative method from Grounded Theory). Final pattern codes (i.e., key themes) were discussed among the research team until mutual agreement had been achieved. Results: Five key themes emerged from the analyses: HCPs often 'got‐by' with (1) instrumental and (2) affective communication strategies used in language‐concordant consultations to start medical consultations. When some instrumental communication strategies were deemed ineffective (e.g., lingua franca, gesturing, etc.) to bridge language barriers, HCPs turned to (3) incorporating digital tools (e.g., Google Translate). When HCPs were unable to communicate with migrant patients at all, (4) informal, ad‐hoc and professional interpreters were involved. Finally, HCPs often (5) involved additional support to engage migrant patients to engage in treatment‐related behaviours. Discussion and Conclusions: Our results highlight the importance of raising awareness among HCPs about using various combinations of different strategies. The development of a guideline indicating the optimal combination of communication strategies for different medical consultation goals may be useful in reshaping the current communication behaviour of HCPs in LDCs. Patient or Public Contribution: HCPs were the study population involved in this qualitative study. Refugee health advisors, general practitioners and linguistic specialists (i.e., members of the Right2Health consortium) with experience with the Dutch healthcare system were involved throughout the development of this research. This includes a review of the research question, participant information sheet and interview topic guide as well as providing interpretations of the data and feedback to this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of Meals on Wheels (MoWs) service users (SUs), and people who refer them to MoWs ('referrers'), with accessing and commencing the service in England, the barriers that might hinder service uptake, and what information would be valued when considering accessing the service. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted in May–July 2022 with seven SUs and 21 referrers, recruited from four MoWs providers across England. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Participants indicated various pathways into the service, but referrers (family members) were more likely to be the ones enquiring about, and commencing, MoWs for SUs. Once an enquiry about MoWs had been made, the service was perceived as straightforward to set up. However, existing preconceptions and stereotypes were perceived to act as barriers to accessing MoWs. Information that participants deemed important to have available when deciding on whether to access MoWs related to the meals, the specific services provided, the reliability and flexibility of delivery and the cost of services. Conclusion: These findings could inform MoWs service providers' public awareness strategies about MoWs, to facilitate referrals to the service for adults with care and support needs. Patient or Public Contribution: An advisory group of people with lived experience of MoWs (users of the service and their family referrers) extensively discussed the findings of the research and advised on the implications and future dissemination steps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indiscriminate use of laboratory blood testing in hospitals contributes to patient discomfort and healthcare waste. Patient engagement in low‐value healthcare can help reduce overuse. Understanding patient experience is necessary to identify opportunities to improve patient engagement with in‐hospital laboratory testing. Objectives: To understand patient experience with the process of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing. Methods: We used a qualitative study design via semistructured interviews conducted online or over the phone. Participants were adult patients or family members/caregivers (≥18 years of age) with a recent (within 12 months of interview) experience of hospitalization in Alberta or British Columbia, Canada. We identified participants through convenience sampling and conducted interviews between May 2021 and June 2022. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis. Recruitment was continued until code saturation was reached. Results: We interviewed 16 participants (13 patients, 1 family member and 2 caregivers). We identified four themes from patients' experiences of in‐hospital laboratory blood testing: (i) patients need information from healthcare teams about expected blood testing processes, (ii) blood draw processes should consider patient comfort and preferences, (iii) patients want information from their healthcare teams about the rationale and frequency of blood testing and (iv) patients need information on how their testing results affect their medical care. Conclusion: Current laboratory testing processes in hospitals do not facilitate shared decision‐making and patient engagement. Patient engagement with laboratory testing in hospitals requires an empathetic healthcare team that provides clear communication regarding testing procedures, rationale and results, while considering patient preferences and offering opportunities for involvement. Patient or Public Contribution: We interviewed 16 patients and/or family members/caregivers regarding their in‐hospital laboratory blood testing experiences. Our findings show correlations between patient needs and patient recommendations to make testing processes more patient‐centred. To bring a lived‐experience lens to this study, we formed a Patient Advisory Council with 9–11 patient research partners. Our patient research partners informed the research design, co‐developed participant recruitment strategies, co‐conducted data collection and informed the data analysis. Some of our patient research partners are co‐authors of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Caring for children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN) is a significant undertaking for families. While respite care is intended to address this burden, demand continues to exceed supply. Exploring the perspectives of respite service providers (SPs) and stakeholders (SKs) provides unique insight into families' needs and respite care systems. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 41 respite care SPs and SKs across four Canadian provinces to ascertain perspectives on current and ideal respite care for families of CYSHCN. The analysis included delineating units of meaning from the data, clustering units of meaning to form thematic statements and extracting themes. The second‐level analysis involved applying themes and subthemes to cross‐functional process maps. Findings: Participants noted the critical, but sometimes absent role of Community Service Workers, who have the ability to support families accessing and navigating respite care systems. SPs and SKs identified current respite systems as operating in crisis mode. New findings suggest an ideal respite care system would incorporate advocacy for families, empower families and value CYSHCN, their families and respite workers. Conclusion: The evidence of unmet respite care needs of families of CYSHCN across Canada has long been available. Our findings identifying respite system challenges and solutions can be used by funders and policymakers for planning and enhancing resources, and by healthcare professionals, respite care providers and SKs to understand barriers and take action to improve respite outcomes to meet the respite needs of all families and CYSHCN. Patient or Public Contribution: The research team is composed of patients, researchers, clinicians and decision‐makers along with our Family Advisory Committee (FAC) composed of members of families of CYSHNC. The FAC was formed and met regularly with research team members, knowledge users and collaborators throughout the study to provide input on design, review themes and ensure findings are translated and disseminated in a meaningful way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]