Search

Introduction: To contribute to addressing diagnostic health inequalities in the United Kingdom, this review aimed to investigate determinants of diagnostic service use amongst people experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using three databases (EBSCO, Web of Science and SCOPUS) to search studies pertaining to diagnostic service use amongst people experiencing high deprivation. Search terms related to diagnostics, barriers and facilitators to access and deprivation. Articles were included if they discussed facilitators and/or barriers to diagnostic service access, contained participants' direct perspectives and focussed on individuals experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom. Articles were excluded if the full text was unretrievable, only abstracts were available, the research did not focus on adults experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom, those not including participants' direct perspectives (e.g., quantitative studies) and papers unavailable in English. Results: Of 14,717 initial papers, 18 were included in the final review. Determinants were grouped into three themes (Beliefs and Behaviours, Emotional and Psychological Factors and Practical Factors), made up of 15 sub‐themes. These were mapped to a conceptual model, which illustrates that Beliefs and Behaviours interact with Emotional and Psychological Factors to influence Motivation to access diagnostic services. Motivation then influences and is influenced by Practical Factors, resulting in a Decision to Access or Not. This decision influences Beliefs and Behaviours and/or Emotional and Psychological Factors such that the cycle begins again. Conclusion: Decision‐making regarding diagnostic service use for people experiencing high deprivation in the United Kingdom is complex. The conceptual model illustrates this complexity, as well as the mediative, interactive and iterative nature of the process. The model should be applied in policy and practice to enable understanding of the factors influencing access to diagnostic services and to design interventions that address identified determinants. Patient or Public Contribution: Consulting lived experience experts was imperative in understanding whether and how the existing literature captures the lived experience of those experiencing high deprivation in South England. The model was presented to lived experience experts, who corroborated findings, highlighted significant factors for them and introduced issues that were not identified in the review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Associations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense‐making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health. Methods: We conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi‐structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender‐based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far‐reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards—addressing long‐standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems. Conclusion: Lived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was peer‐led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Those with severe and enduring mental ill health are at greater risk of long‐term physical health conditions and have a reduced life expectancy as a result. Multiple factors compound this health inequality, and the need for setting research priorities in this area is highlighted with physical and mental healthcare services being separate, and limited multimorbidity research. Methods: The aim of this exercise was to work in partnership with healthcare professionals and carers, family, friends and individuals with lived experience of both mental and physical health conditions, to set research priorities to help people with mental health conditions to look after their physical health. The exercise was guided by the James Lind Alliance approach. For this, a steering group was set up, two surveys were completed and a final priority workshop was conducted. Results: This priority setting exercise guided by people's needs and lived experience has produced a set of well‐defined research topics. Initially, 555 research questions were suggested in the first survey, which were refined to 54 questions for the second survey. A priority setting workshop was then conducted to get the final 10 priorities. Conclusions: Taking these topics forward to improve services and treatment for both mental and physical ill health may in turn improve physical health and lessen the reduced life expectancy of those living with mental ill health. Patient or Public Contribution: This work was completed in collaboration with people who have lived experience of mental ill health and physical health conditions, as well as carers, family and friends. Their contribution has been significant for this work from piloting surveys, amending language used and educating the researchers and contributing to this paper. The initial work was completed with a steering group and continued with surveys and workshops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ensuring adequate representation and the active, meaningful and visible involvement of groups likely to be most impacted by research findings and/or the lack of research inquiry are increasingly acknowledged. This is particularly relevant for Black racially minoritised groups who are less visible as research participants and in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) roles. Our viewpoint article sought to discuss reflections and insights on their involvement experience, with particular attention to perceived barriers and enablers to PPIE involvement. Methods: Qualitative data were collected as part of facilitated group discussions from nine Black racially minoritised experts‐by‐experience involved in a PPIE advisory group. Data were subjected to thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results: Five main themes were identified that reflected factors linked to practicalities: role unfamiliarity, benefits for the larger community, acknowledgement of previous harm and mental health stigma. Conclusion: Given the existence and importance of the direct links between research and service and treatment innovations in health and social care, ensuring that those from underrepresented Black racial communities are meaningfully and equitably supported to have roles in advising and influencing research programmes should be prioritised and an ongoing consideration for different stakeholders, including research funders, researchers, healthcare providers and community leaders/representatives. Patient or Public Contribution: This viewpoint article is a collaboration between lived experience stakeholders and researchers, comprising conceiving the original idea for the paper, its conceptualisation and data generation and the coproduction including editing of the manuscript. [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]