Search

Background: Liver disease is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality in the United Kingdom and can be challenging to live with in the advanced stages. There has been little research exploring the healthcare experiences of UK individuals with decompensated disease when the liver cannot carry out its functions properly. A PhD research project was developed with people who have liver disease to explore care experiences in decompensated advanced liver disease. Public involvement (PI) is an essential aspect of meaningful health research, and this paper reports on the progression of our PI approach in this ongoing study. Objective: To embed PI throughout the research project to ensure that the study is meaningful to individuals with liver disease and the people who support them. Methods: The research adopts a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to develop a theory of care experience. Various PI approaches were considered in developing the PI strategy for this qualitative study. Initially, Embedded consultation was the preferred model, which has evolved to include aspects of collaboration and coproduction. A PI group was set up to oversee the project through the national public engagement website VOICE, and reflections on PI from three members of the group are included in this paper to illuminate the PI process. Results: Six individuals with liver disease and three carers from across the United Kingdom are part of an ongoing PI group. Their role includes commenting on the findings of the systematic literature review for this project and contributing to decisions about recruitment, data collection and data analysis. Additionally, they had a direct impact on changing the focus of the research. The PI group will continue involvement until the completion of the project. Conclusion: Successfully embedding PI into doctoral research, as demonstrated in this project, requires commitment, planning and dedication to reciprocal working for the benefit of PI contributors as well as the research. This approach could be adopted by other postgraduate researchers. Patient or Public Contribution: This project is overseen by the PI group, whose contribution is described throughout, including reflections from three PI group members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is now widely recognised that engaging consumers in research activities can enhance the quality, equity and relevance of the research. Much of the commentary about consumer engagement in research focuses on research processes and implementation, rather than dissemination in conference settings. This article offers reflections and learnings from consumers, researchers and conference organisers on the 12th Health Services Research Conference, a biennial conference hosted by the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand (HSRAANZ). Method: We were awarded funds via a competitive application process by Bellberry Limited, a national not‐for‐profit agency with a focus on improving research quality, to incorporate consumer engagement strategies in conference processes and evaluate their impact. Findings: Strategies included consumer scholarships, a buddy system, designated quiet space and consumer session co‐chairs; the reflections explored in this paper were collected in the funded, independent evaluation. Our insights suggest a need for more structured consumer involvement in conference planning and design, as well as the development of specific engagement strategies. Conclusion: To move toward active partnership in scientific conference settings, our experience reinforces the need to engage consumers as members in designing and conducting research and in presenting research and planning conference content and processes. Public Contribution: Consumer engagement in research dissemination at conferences is the focus of this viewpoint article. Consumers were involved in the conception of this article and have contributed to authorship at all stages of revisions and edits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient and public involvement is vital for high‐quality research. Integrating patients' and providers' perspectives early in research enhances the feasibility and relevance of study results. Within our family practice‐based research network ForN, we established a standing patient advisory board (PAB) to include patients with diverse conditions and experiences. In this paper, we aim to describe the establishment and functioning of a standing PAB in family medicine research from patients' and researchers' perspectives. Methods: After each PAB meeting, patients and researchers were asked to name anonymously positive and challenging moments in a feedback form with open questions. Researchers were also asked to reflect on how they implemented the discussion content in their research projects. The responses from both groups were transferred to MAXQDA 2018 and analyzed separately using thematic analysis. Results: We analyzed 40 feedback forms from patients and 14 feedback forms from researchers. The dominant theme in the patients' feedback was 'exchange': They positively emphasized the 'exciting and open discussions' and the exchange of perspectives with one another and researchers. The clarity of the researchers' presentations and the research topics were appreciated. Researchers also positively highlighted the open atmosphere of the discussions. Presenting their research to the PAB helped most researchers reflect on their research topics from patients' perspectives and implement changes. However, researchers also mentioned several barriers to the implementation of PAB members' feedback. Conclusion: The establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research is feasible and productive both from patients' and researchers' perspectives. Patient or Public Contribution: This study reports the evaluation of the establishment of a standing PAB in family practice research. Board members are involved in the design of studies, the co‐production of interventions and information material, and the interpretation of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper aims to explore the impact of recovery education on recovery knowledge, attitudes and the quality of life of students undertaking recovery education, contributing to the evidence base in relation to the impact of recovery education. It also explores the experiences of all stakeholders involved in the co‐facilitation, delivery and participation in recovery education. Setting and Participants: This study evaluates the experiences of stakeholders involved in the co‐facilitation, delivery and participation in recovery education across four recovery colleges in Ireland. Participants included students undertaking recovery education, peer educators, education facilitators, recovery college coordinators and practitioner/service providers. Discussion: Findings from the quantitative survey when compared with extant literature suggest that students had a good understanding of recovery education. The social aspect of empowerment for growth and wellbeing was identified through themes relating to co‐production and facilitating student learning. Support for equitable access to recovery education, including co‐production for both the public and staff, was identified as a challenge for the future. Conclusion: The findings from both the qualitative and quantitative components of the study show the positive impact of recovery education on stakeholders while acknowledging the need for ongoing support for people working in recovery education and the development of services. In particular, there was a high level of recovery knowledge found in students undertaking recovery education. Patient or Public Contribution: This study utilised a co‐created study design. From inception a steering group comprising stakeholders (peer educators, recovery education facilitators including past recovery college students and nonpeer staff involved in the co‐production of recovery education) directed the conduct of the evaluation. This steering group participated in an iterative process of information sharing, suggestions for evaluation process and language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co‐design is becoming common practice in the development of mental health services, however, little is known about the experience of such practices, particularly when young people are involved. Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the co‐design which was undertaken for the development of an intervention for youth and adolescents at risk of suicide. This paper briefly outlines the co‐design process undertaken during a COVID‐19 lockdown and then focuses on a qualitative evaluation of the experience of taking part in a co‐design process. Setting and Participants: The evaluation involved young consumers of a public youth mental health service, their carers/parents and service delivery staff who had taken part in the co‐design process. Method: This study used follow‐up semistructured interviews with the co‐design participants to explore their experience of the co‐design process. Inductive thematic analysis was used to draw out common themes from the qualitative data. Results: It was found that despite the practical efforts of the project team to minimise known issues in co‐design, challenges centred around perceptions regarding power imbalance, the need for extensive consultation and time constraints still arose. Discussion: Despite these challenges, the study found that the co‐design provided a human‐centred, accessible and rewarding process for young people, parents and staff members, leaving them with the feeling that they had made a worthwhile contribution to the design of the new service, as well as contributing to changing practice in service design. Conclusion: With sensitivity and adaptation to usual practice, it is possible to include young people with suicidal ideation, their parents/carers and professional staff in a safe and effective co‐design process. Patient and Public Contribution: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived experience and their carers who participated in the co‐design process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Older carers or 'care partners' of older people experiencing care needs often provide essential support, at times while neglecting their own health and well‐being. This is an increasingly frequent scenario due to both demographic changes and policy shifts towards ageing in place. Multiple community stakeholders within the care and support ecosystem hold valuable expertise about the needs of older care partners, and the programme and policy responses that may better support their health and well‐being. The aim of this study was to identify the perspectives of stakeholders obtained through the codesign phase of a multicomponent research project investigating new models of care and support for older care partners suitable for the Australian context. Methods: Principles of codesign were used to engage a purposeful sample of older care partners, health professionals, researchers, policy makers and health service administrators. Participants took part in a series of three codesign workshops conducted remotely via video conferencing. The workshops were supported with briefing material and generated consensus‐based summaries, arriving at a preferred service model. Findings: This paper reports the research design and structure of the codesign panels, the range of findings identified as important to support the health and well‐being of older carers of older people, and the resulting service model principles. The codesigned and preferred model of care is currently being prepared for implementation and evaluation in Australia. Public Contribution: This study was conducted using codesign methodology, whereby stakeholders including older care partners and others involved in supporting older carers, were integrally involved with design, development, results and conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals on Raman‐faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test for colorectal cancer exclusion in primary care. Design: Semi‐structured interviews within a feasibility study. Setting: Patients presenting to primary care with colorectal symptoms and healthcare professionals working in primary and secondary care. Participants: A total of 23 patients and 12 healthcare professionals. Methods: Patient participants were asked to complete a novel combined Raman‐FIT test before being seen in secondary care. This study sought their opinions about the test. We also sought the views of healthcare professionals. Findings: Patients and healthcare professionals agreed that Raman‐FIT was a suitable test to be given in primary care. It aligned with routine practice and was a simple test for most patients to complete. Conclusions: Patients are willing and able to complete the Raman‐FIT test in primary care. Raman‐FIT may accelerate access to diagnosis with the potential to improve cancer outcomes. Patient and Public Involvement: Lay members (J. H. and I. H.) with experience and knowledge of colorectal cancer and screening contributed to developing, undertaking, and disseminating all aspects of the research. They were supported to collaborate as equal members of the research team. They were involved in developing the study as coapplicants, using personal experience to ensure that the research and its methods were relevant to the patient and public needs. Both prepared participant information sheets, coanalysed data, and contributed to study reporting and dissemination through papers, conference presentations and a lay summary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Involving patients is a key premise of national and international policies on patient safety, which requires understanding how patients or carers want to be involved and developing resources to support this. This paper examines patients' and carers' views of being involved in patient safety in primary care and their views of potentially using a co‐designed patient safety guide for primary care (PSG‐PC) to foster both involvement and their safety. Methods: A qualitative study using semistructured face‐to‐face interviews with 18 patients and/or carers in primary care. Interviews were transcribed and analysis was conducted using an inductive thematic approach. Results: Overall participants expressed enthusiasm for the PSG‐PC as a tool to support patients and carers to be involved in patient safety in primary care. However, for some participants being involved in patient safety was seen as taking on the role of General Practitioner and had the potential to add an additional workload for patients. Participants' willingness or ability to be involved in patient safety was influenced by a range of factors including an invisible, often underacknowledged role of everyday safety for patients' interactions with primary care; the levels of involvement that patients wanted in their care and safety and the work of embedding the PSG‐PC for patients into their routine interactions with primary care. Participants identified components of the PSG‐PC that would be useful to them, in particular, if they had a responsibility for caring for a family member if they had more complex care or long‐term conditions. Conclusion: Involving patients and carers in patient safety needs a tailored and personalized approach that enables patients and carers to use resources like the PSG‐PC routinely and helps challenge assumptions about their willingness and ability to be involved in patient safety. Doing so would raise awareness of opportunities to be involved in safety in line with personal preference. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement were central to the research study. This included working in partnership to develop the PSG‐PC with patients and carers and throughout our study including in the design of the study, recruiting participants, interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient‐centred care (PCC) has come to the forefront for many institutions, funding agencies and clinicians, and is integrated into care. Does a disconnect in understanding still exist between patients, healthcare organizations and clinicians in what PCC means and how outstanding issues might be addressed? Methods: We conducted interviews and focus groups with self‐reported chronic care patients and clinicians providing care to these patients exploring PCC experiences, expectations and practices. These data were initially analysed using inductive thematic analysis. This paper reports on the findings of a secondary analysis examining the alignment between patients and clinicians on five key predetermined dimensions of PCC. Results: Eighteen patients participated, representing a range of chronic conditions. Thirty‐eight clinicians participated. One thousand and three hundred patient and 1800 clinician codes were identified and grouped into 5 main topics with 140 unique themes (patients) and 9 main topics with 54 unique themes (clinicians). A total of 166 quotes (patient = 93, clinician = 73) were identified for this PCC definition alignment analysis. Partial or complete alignment of patient and clinician perspectives was seen on most dimensions. Key disconnects were observed in patient involvement, patient empowerment and clinician–patient communication. Only 18% of patients reported experiencing patient‐centred communication, whereas 57% of clinicians reported using patient‐focused communication approaches. Conclusion: Overall, study patients and clinicians endorse that many PCC elements occur. This study highlights key differences between patients and clinicians, suggesting persistent challenges. Clinician participants relayed their PCC approaches of informing and educating patients; however, patients often perceive these approaches as didactic, role‐diminishing and noncollaborative. Collaborative approaches, such as shared decision‐making, hold promise to bridge persistent PCC gaps and should be integrated into medical education programmes. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was conceived and executed with a co‐design approach wherein patients with chronic conditions who are trained in research (i.e., see descriptions of Patient and Community Engagement Research in the text) were involved in all stages of the research project alongside other researchers on the project team. Healthcare providers were involved as participants and as principal investigators in the project. [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]

Introduction: No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland. Methods: This was a qualitative study with semi‐structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in‐depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts. Results: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care. Conclusions: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences. Patient or Public Contribution: A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)—comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators—was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members—Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician—are coauthors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Poor medical information transfer across healthcare visits and providers poses a potential threat to patient safety. Patient‐held health records (PHRs) may be used to facilitate informational continuity, handover communication and patient self‐management. However, there are conflicting opinions on the effectiveness of PHRs, other than in maternal and child care. Moreover, the experiences of users of PHRs in low‐ and middle‐income countries are critical in policy decisions but have rarely been researched. Aim: This study aimed to explore similarities and differences in the perspectives of patients, carers and healthcare providers (HCPs) on the current PHRs for diabetes and hypertension in Kerala. Methods: A qualitative design was used comprising semistructured interviews with patients with diabetes/hypertension (n = 20), carers (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 17) in Kerala, India. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Themes generated regarding the experiences with PHRs from each user group were compared and contrasted. The themes that arose were organized under three headings: use of PHRs in everyday practice; the perceived value of PHR and where practice and value conflict. We found that in the use of PHRs in everyday practice, multiple PHRs posed challenges for patients carrying records and for HCPs locating relevant information. Most carers carried all patients' past PHRs, while patients made decisions on which PHR to take along based on the purpose of the healthcare visit. HCPs appreciated having PHRs but documented limited details in them. The perceived value of PHRs by each group for themselves was different. While HCPs placed value on PHRs for enabling better clinical decision‐making, preventing errors and patient safety, patients perceived them as transactional tools for diabetes and hypertension medications; carers highlighted their value during emergencies. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that users find a variety of values for PHRs. However, these perceived values are different for each user group, suggesting minimal functioning of PHRs for informational continuity, handover communication and self‐management. Patient and Public Involvement: Patients and carers were involved during the pilot testing of topic guides, consent and study information sheets. Patients and carers gave their feedback on the materials to ensure clarity and appropriateness within the context. [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 and Aims: Communication is important in determining how patients understand the diagnostic process. Empirical studies involving direct observation of communication within diagnostic processes are relatively limited. This ethnographic study aimed to identify communicative practices facilitating or inhibiting shared understanding between patients and doctors in UK acute secondary care settings. Methods: Data were collected in acute medical sectors of three English hospitals. Researchers observed doctors as they assessed patients; semistructured interviews were undertaken with doctors and patients directly afterwards. Patients were also interviewed 2–4 weeks later. Case studies of individual encounters (consisting of these interviews and observational notes) were created, and were cross‐examined by an interdisciplinary team to identify divergence and convergence between doctors' and patients' narratives. These data were analysed thematically. Results: We conducted 228 h of observation, 24 doctor interviews, 32 patient interviews and 15 patient follow‐up interviews. Doctors varied in their communication. Patient diagnostic understanding was sometimes misaligned with that of their doctors; interviews revealed that they often made incorrect assumptions to make sense of the fragmented information received. Thematic analysis identified communicative practices that seemed to facilitate, or inhibit, shared diagnostic understanding between patient and doctor, revealing three themes: (1) communicating what has been understood from the medical record, (2) sharing the thought process and diagnostic reasoning and (3) closing the loop and discharge communication. Shared understanding was best fostered by clear communication about the diagnostic process, what had already been done and what was achievable in acute settings. Written information presents an underutilised tool in such communication. Conclusions: In UK acute secondary settings, the provision of more information about the diagnostic process often fostered shared understanding between doctor and patient, helping to minimise the confusion and dissatisfaction that can result from misaligned expectations or conclusions about the diagnosis, and the uncertainty therein. Patient/Public Contribution: A patient and public involvement group (of a range of ages and backgrounds) was consulted. They contributed to the design of the protocol, including the timing of interviews, the acceptability of a follow‐up telephone interview, the development of the interview guides and the participant information sheets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A growing body of research is examining how healthcare systems are responding to the increasing numbers of migrants and the resulting superdiversity of patients. The aim of this article is to identify and explain communication barriers in the provision of healthcare to Ukrainian war refugees in the Czech Republic from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and intercultural mediators. Methods: The exploratory case study is based on a qualitative analysis of semi‐structured interviews with frontline health professionals: 20 with doctors and 10 with nurses. The second source of data is two focus groups aimed at capturing communication problems from the perspective of intercultural mediators who accompany refugees to health facilities. The interview transcripts and FGs were analysed using six‐stage thematic coding. Results: The survey identified five main themes related to barriers to communication: (1) language barriers and interpreting, (2) cultural barriers, (3) differing expectations of health and the healthcare systems in the Czech Republic and Ukraine, (4) prejudices and negative attitudes and unethical behaviour towards refugees and migrants and (5) lack of awareness of patient rights. Conclusions: The arrival of large numbers of migrants has highlighted deficiencies in the system that may affect other vulnerable groups and the general population. These include the lack of general communication skills and legal awareness among many health professionals, which are barriers to the development of patient‐centred care. The involvement of intercultural mediators fundamentally improves communication between health professionals and (not only) migrant patients. Nevertheless, it is necessary to legally anchor and define the position of intercultural mediators within the healthcare system. Patient or Public Contribution: Collaboration with intercultural mediators who interpreted the extensive experiences of Ukrainian refugee patients and also have personal experience as migrant or migrant‐origin patients contributed to shaping research questions, facilitating study participation and enriching evidence interpretation. Researchers with multicultural backgrounds and experience with working with people from refugee backgrounds were involved in the study design and analysis. [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: Qualitative research on the perceptions of healthcare professionals involved in cancer care about their respective roles in the patient care pathway is limited. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to document these perceptions. Methods: A multidisciplinary team that included patient researchers constructed a semi‐structured interview guide on the perceptions of the colorectal cancer care pathway by professionals. Interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals from two French hospitals that manage patients with colorectal cancer. Then, the interviews were fully transcribed and analysed by the whole multidisciplinary team. Results: Thirteen healthcare professionals were interviewed (six nurses, four physicians, one psychologist, one social worker and one secretary). They described the colorectal care pathway using a great lexical diversity and listed a significant number of professionals as taking part in this pathway. Among the people mentioned were healthcare professionals working inside and outside the hospital, family members and non‐conventional medicine practitioners. However, they did not spontaneously mention the patient. Their views on the role of the referring physician, the general practitioner and the patient were further explored. The interviews highlighted the coordination difficulties among the various professionals, particularly between general practitioners and hospital teams. These data provided interesting elements for developing a tool to help coordination among professionals. Conclusions: This preliminary study, with its participatory design, brings interesting elements of reflection on the care pathway for patients with colorectal cancer. It will continue through the creation of a larger participatory project. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient partners were included in all steps of this study. This transdisciplinary project was coordinated by a group composed of three patient partners, two healthcare professionals and two humanities and social sciences researchers. Their knowledge of the patient's perspective on the care pathway enriched discussions from the study design to results analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co‐design is undertaken in‐person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co‐design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in‐person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence‐informed approaches to facilitating co‐design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co‐design into an online environment. Materials and Methods: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in‐person co‐design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co‐design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end‐users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician−researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co‐design process were evaluated via a mixed‐methods design using surveys and semi‐structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework. Results: The developed framework, Partnership‐focussed Principles‐driven Online co‐Design (P‐POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co‐design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P‐POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P‐POD framework is presented. Conclusion: With evaluation of the initial P‐POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co‐design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P‐POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. Patient or Public Contribution: This study involved the participants (end‐users, clinicians and service providers) in the co‐design process described, interpretation of the results through member‐checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co‐authors for this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Globally, there is an increasing demand for quality medical rehabilitation services. This is the first article of a two‐part series showing the findings from the Rehabilitation Choices study in which the main aim was to understand the current landscape of decision‐making, enablers and barriers to access appropriate rehabilitation services in the Australian setting. In Part 1, these insights were sought from a healthcare professionals' perspective. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative study, using semi‐structured interviews with a discussion guide that was codesigned together with rehabilitation clinicians and rehabilitation researchers. Themes and sub‐themes were identified using an inductive approach. Results: We interviewed a heterogeneous group of 31 professionals who are involved in making referral decisions about rehabilitation or who design and deliver rehabilitation programs, including specialist rehabilitation physicians and other medical doctors across in‐patient, outpatient, and primary care settings, allied health professionals, rehabilitation service managers, nurses, multicultural health liaison officers and rehabilitation research scientists. Three key themes relevant to barriers and enablers to service access were identified from the data: defining rehabilitation; a lack of timely access to patient and rehabilitation service data; and patient diversity not expected by the system. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals who make decisions about rehabilitation referrals and services feel that it was necessary for them to keep up to date with information relating to rehabilitation services. There was some concern regarding what rehabilitation constituted and what services were available for different clinical indications. They also indicated that current systems did not consider diversity among patients' needs and goals. Their recommendations included the need for better communication pathways, improved referral systems and resources that could help provide best practice of rehabilitative care in the future. Patient or Public Contribution: Three study team members had a lived experience of rehabilitation as a patient or carer, and previous experience participating in qualitative research. They worked with the study team to codesign the recruitment strategy, participant‐facing communications, the interview discussion guide, and the approach to the conduct of activities with participants and in the interpretation and contextualization of findings and all were involved in writing this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many people experience persistent symptoms for more than 12 weeks following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, which is known as post‐COVID‐19 condition (PCS) or Long COVID (LC). PCS can impair people's quality of life and daily functioning. However, there is a lack of in‐depth research exploring the PCS patient journey, as well as gendered aspects of patients' experiences. Methods: Nineteen semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with people living with PCS in the United Kingdom (13 women, 6 men). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five main themes were identified: 'Symptom dismissal', 'Lack of information and support', 'Life before and after Long COVID', 'Psychological impact' and 'Acceptance'. A shift overtime to self‐management of symptoms was evident. These themes represent different stages of patients' PCS journey. Narratives indicated that women highlighted dismissal by healthcare professionals (HCPs), which was not as prominent in men's narratives. In addition, women went into more detail about the psychological impact of PCS compared to men. Conclusion: Women with PCS reported symptom dismissal by HCPs, which may have delayed their diagnosis and negatively affected their well‐being. We were not able to explore the experiences of people from non‐conforming gender groups. Raising awareness of these issues among HCPs, particularly general practitioners, could improve patient care in PCS. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement consisted of people who took part in the interviews and commented on the themes' interpretation and study conclusions. [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]

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]

Background: Supported self‐management can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with cancer; the considerations required to implement self‐management support (SMS) for people living with a lower‐grade glioma (LGG)—who often have complex support needs—are not known. We aimed to identify and understand these implementation considerations through the lens of normalisation process theory (NPT), from the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCP) and people with LGG. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with HCPs who support adults with brain tumours (n = 25; 12 different healthcare professions), and people with LGG who had completed primary treatment (n = 28; male n = 16, mean age 54.6 years, mean time since diagnosis 8.7 years), from across the United Kingdom. Interviews were transcribed and inductive open coding conducted, before deductively mapping to constructs of NPT. We first mapped HCP data, then integrated data from people with LGG to explore alignment in experiences and perspectives. Results: We generated supporting evidence for all four NPT constructs and related subconstructs, namely: 'Coherence', 'Cognitive participation', 'Collective action' and 'Reflexive monitoring'. Data from HCPs and people with LGG clearly demonstrated that effective SMS constitutes a collective activity. Key implementation considerations included: ensuring awareness of, and access to, support; building strong HCP‐support recipient relationships; and careful inclusion of close family and friends. We identified pertinent challenges, such as identifying support needs (influenced by the extent to which those with LGG engage in help‐seeking), resistance to support (e.g., technology literacy), training for HCPs and HCP cooperation. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the collective nature of, and provides insight into the individual roles within, supported self‐management. We outline considerations to operationalise, sustain and appraise the implementation of SMS for people with LGG. Patient or Public Contribution: People with brain tumours, and informal caregivers, were involved in the development of information materials and topic guides to ensure accessibility and pertinence. They also had opportunities to comment on interview findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community health workers represent a critical part of the health outreach and services for migrant and seasonal farmworkers ('farmworkers') in rural areas of the United States. Purpose: We sought to identify adaptations to farmworker patient engagement and health outreach made by community health workers during the first 18 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: In this qualitative study, we used semi‐structured interviews with community health workers from August 2020 to February 2022 (n = 21). Two coders used thematic analysis to identify three themes related to the experiences of community health workers in conducting health education and outreach to farmworkers prior to and following the onset of the pandemic. Findings: We found themes related to pre‐pandemic outreach efforts to provide health education resource sharing with farmworkers and pandemic‐related outreach efforts that included adoption of porch drops and distanced delivery of health education, adaptation of modes of health education and communication through technology and the internet, and taking on new roles related to COVID‐19. Finally, we identified changes that reverted after the pandemic or will continue as adaptations. Conclusions: Community health workers created practice‐based innovations in outreach in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. These innovations included new COVID‐19 related roles and new modes of health education and outreach, including the use of digital resources. The changes developed for emergency use in COVID‐19, particularly related to internet and technology, have likely altered how community health workers conduct outreach in North Carolina going forward. Funders, community health worker training programs, and researchers should take note of these innovations. Patient or Public Contribution: Community health workers who typically come from patient populations and provide critical navigation and connection with the health care system advised on the design and creation of this research project, including serving on an advisory board. Two authors have experience working as community health workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following stroke, a sense of well‐being is critical for quality of life. However, people living with stroke, and health professionals, suggest that well‐being is not sufficiently addressed within stroke services, contributing to persistent unmet needs. Knowing that systems and structures shape clinical practice, this study sought to understand how health professionals address well‐being, and to examine how the practice context influences care practice. Methods: Underpinned by Interpretive Description methodology, we interviewed 28 health professionals across multiple disciplines working in stroke services (acute and rehabilitation) throughout New Zealand. Data were analysed using applied tension analysis. Results: Health professionals are managing multiple lines of work in stroke care: biomedical work of investigation, intervention and prevention; clinical work of assessment, monitoring and treatment; and moving people through service. While participants reported working to support well‐being, this could be deprioritised amidst the time‐oriented pressures of the other lines of work that were privileged within services, rendering it unsupported and invisible. Conclusion: Stroke care is shaped by biomedical and organisational imperatives that privilege physical recovery and patient throughput. Health professionals are not provided with the knowledge, skills, time or culture of care that enable them to privilege well‐being within their work. This has implications for the well‐being of people with stroke, and the well‐being of health professionals. In making these discourses and culture visible, and tracing how these impact on clinical practice, we hope to provide insight into why well‐being work remains other to the 'core' work of stroke, and what needs to be considered if stroke services are to better support people's well‐being. Patient or Public Contributions: People with stroke, family members and people who provide support to people with stroke, and health professionals set priorities for this research. They advised on study conduct and have provided feedback on wider findings from the research. [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: Returning home from the hospital for palliative‐focused care is a common transition, but the process can be emotionally distressing and logistically challenging for patients and caregivers. While interventions exist to aid in the transition, none have been developed in partnership with patients and caregivers. Objective: To undergo the initial stages of codesign to create an intervention (Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home [ACEPATH]) to improve the experience of hospital‐to‐home transitions for adult patients receiving palliative care and their caregiver(s). Methods: The codesign process consisted of (1) the development of codesign workshop (CDW) materials to communicate key findings from prior research to CDW participants; (2) CDWs with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs); and (3) low‐fidelity prototype testing to review CDW outputs and develop low‐fidelity prototypes of interventions. HCPs provided feedback on the viability of low‐fidelity prototypes. Results: Three patients, seven caregivers and five HCPs participated in eight CDWs from July 2022 to March 2023. CDWs resulted in four intervention prototypes: a checklist, quick reference sheets, a patient/caregiver workbook and a transition navigator role. Outputs from CDWs included descriptions of interventions and measures of success. In April 2023, the four prototypes were presented in four low‐fidelity prototype sessions to 20 HCPs. Participants in the low‐fidelity prototype sessions provided feedback on what the interventions could look like, what problems the interventions were trying to solve and concerns about the interventions. Conclusion: Insights gained from this codesign work will inform high‐fidelity prototype testing and the eventual implementation and evaluation of an ACEPATH intervention that aims to improve hospital‐to‐home transitions for patients receiving a palliative approach to care. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and caregivers with lived experience attended CDWs aimed at designing an intervention to improve the transition from hospital to home. Their direct involvement aligns the intervention with patients' and caregivers' needs when transitioning from hospital to home. Furthermore, four patient/caregiver advisors were engaged throughout the project (from grant writing through to manuscript writing) to ensure all stages were patient‐ and caregiver‐centred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Problem‐solving skills (PSS) help to provide a systematic approach to dealing with and managing complex problems. The overall aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of developing and adapting a prison‐based PSS workbook for adults within a medium‐ and low‐secure hospital. Method: We used the Medical Research Council framework in our participatory mixed methods study incorporating an adapted survey (to identify what types of problems people experience in secure hospitals), a series of three interactive workshops (to co‐produce two case study examples for a workbook) and we gathered feedback from patients and hospital staff on the acceptability and feasibility of the workbook. Data from the survey were used to inform the case study examples, and the feedback from patients and hospital staff was descriptively summarised and the results consolidated. Results: In total, 82 (51%) patients took part in the survey; 22 patients and 49 hospital staff provided feedback on the workbook. The survey results indicated that patients regularly experience problems while in the hospital. Patients reported problems relating to restrictions of freedom and boredom. The workshops produced two case studies for the workbooks, with mainly positive patient and staff feedback. More work is required to improve the visual representation of the characters in the case studies, the amount and content of the language and the mechanism of the intervention delivery. Conclusion: The adaptation process proved acceptable and feasible to both patients and staff. The co‐production methodology for the workbook and feedback from patients and staff was an effective way of iteratively refining the materials to ensure that they were both meaningful and acceptable to staff and patients. Subsequent work is required to develop the workbook and evaluate the feasibility of the intervention delivery, recruitment rates, uptake and adherence to the PSS using a randomised controlled trial. Patient or Public Contribution: At each stage of the project consultation with patients and/or hospital staff was involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Codesigned interventions are becoming more common in health services and, in particular, in the design and development of mental health programmes and interventions. However, previous research has established that the transition from codesign to implementation can experience several challenges and that this transition process has received little research attention. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the experience of staff members charged with the implementation of a codesigned intervention for young people and adolescents at risk of suicide. Setting and Participants: Five staff members involved in the implementation of the new codesigned programme took part in semi‐structured interviews. Method: The study involved qualitative evaluation of staff experiences during the implementation of a new child and youth suicide intervention. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: The analysis identified four themes of 'disconnect', 'operational challenges, 'service user' and 'being authentic'. 'Disconnect' captures the difficulties of implementing a codesigned programme which leads to 'operational challenges' in meeting broader expectations while ensuring the feasibility of the programme. The third theme, 'service user', captures the realisation that the young people accessing the new service were different to those involved in the codesign process. The final theme, 'being authentic', highlights how staff needed to be responsive and flexible while remaining true to the principles proposed in the codesign. Discussion: This study yielded some valuable insights into the challenges around the implementation of a codesigned intervention, an under‐researched area. The findings suggest that adaption of the design may be necessary, if it is not informed by implementation constraints, making it necessary for the implementation team to be well‐briefed on the initial design and given plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments in a coproduction process. Limitations for the generalisation of the results include a small sample of staff and particular challenges that may be unique to this study. Conclusion: The present study highlights that for health services undertaking codesign approaches, appropriate time and resources need to be considered for the implementation phase of an initiative, to ensure that there is effective translation from design to implementation and that new codesigned services can be effective within operational constraints. Patient and Public Contribution: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the young people with a lived‐experience and their carers who participated in the codesign process and research evaluation component of this study. We also wish to thank the clinical staff, peer workers and family peer workers who participated in the evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Effective consumer engagement practices can enhance patient safety. This is important for consumers from ethnic minority backgrounds who are exposed to increased risk of patient safety events. Using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model, this study explored staff experiences of creating opportunities for engagement with consumers from ethnic minority backgrounds to contribute to their cancer care safety. Method: A qualitative study was conducted using semistructured interviews with cancer service staff from four cancer services across two states in Australia. Purposive sampling was used to recruit healthcare staff from a diverse range of professions. Data were analysed using the Framework Analysis method. Results: Fifty‐four interviews were conducted with healthcare staff. Analysis of the qualitative interview data identified enablers and associated challenges that contributed to creating a shared understanding between consumers and staff of the information, processes, expectations and problems arising in care. Enablers and challenges are reported in relation to four themes: (1) co‐creating safety through shared understanding of care processes; (2) tools and technologies support planned communication; (3) organisational policy levers exist but lack implementation in direct care and (4) formal tasks incorporate consumer engagement more readily than informal interactions. Conclusion: The availability of infrastructure and resources to support communication with consumers from ethnic minority backgrounds was limited to specific tasks across the cancer care continuum. Strategies implemented by health services to foster effective communication during formal interactions now require expansion to support and create conditions for effective consumer engagement during informal and everyday care tasks. The use of innovative language support tools and cultural considerations are required at the service and system level to support consumer engagement in all types of care interactions. Public and Patient Involvement: The study was embedded within a larger project that included a consumer investigator and was guided by a consumer advisory group (CAG). These consumer team members have lived experience of cancer and are from diverse ethnic backgrounds. CAG members provided feedback on the draft interview guide and participant information for this study. [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]

Background: More than 90% of deaf children are born to hearing families who know little about deafness. Benefits from hearing screening at birth are often lost, as families find little information about pathways for deaf children but are key to ensuring deaf children receive relevant language and communication support. Systems surrounding deaf children and family members are crucial for children's health and social development. Experiences of hearing parents raising deaf children and understanding factors that influence families' experience of navigating pathways for deaf children through health and education services are currently underreported. Methods: An exploratory study was conducted in Wales, UK. Twenty participants were interviewed, including 10 hearing parents of deaf children and 10 people who work with deaf children using semistructured interviews. Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory was used as a lens to explore the micro‐, meso‐, exo‐, macro‐ and chronosystems that surround children and families. This study explores potential supports and barriers in those systems. Findings: Findings are reported under two broad headings: enablers and barriers. Under enablers, it was found that provision of resources, supporting people and knowledge were key factors. Under barriers, a lack of knowledge, lack of provision and battling services and attitudes were key issues that need addressing. Conclusion: Hearing parents of deaf children in Wales, UK reported experiencing a range of enablers and barriers that impact upon their experiences of raising a deaf child. Further provision is needed by policymakers and governments to recognise support needs to improve the outcomes for deaf children. Patient or Public Contribution: This project was developed from initial discussions with the stakeholder reference group and progressed with the group's deaf panel and hearing parents with deaf children. The project's steering group was involved in study design, recruitment and continuous feedback on all stages of the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Maternity services underwent much change during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Research on the impact on miscarriage care and experiences during this time is sparse. Within a national evaluation of recurrent miscarriage care, we qualitatively explored stakeholder views and experiences of recurrent miscarriage services in Ireland. This study describes the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on those experiences and perceptions of care. Methods: People with professional and lived experience of recurrent miscarriage and service engagement were actively involved in this qualitative study from idea generation to analysis and reporting. We recruited women and men with two or more consecutive first‐trimester miscarriages, and people involved in the management/delivery of recurrent miscarriage services and supports. We used purposive sampling to ensure that perspectives across disciplinary or lived experience, geographical, and health service administrative areas, were included. We conducted semi‐structured interviews, virtually all due to COVID‐19 restrictions, between June 2020 and February 2021. These were audio‐recorded, and data were transcribed, and subsequently analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed 42 service providers and 13 women and 7 men with experience of recurrent miscarriage. We actively generated two central themes during data analysis. The first—'Disconnected'—describes how many women navigated miscarriage diagnosis and management and care in subsequent pregnancies alone; many felt that this resulted in increased trauma. At the same time, men struggled with not being present to support their partners and described feeling disconnected. The second theme highlighted 'The perceived dispensability of recurrent miscarriage services and supports'. Some service providers felt that service reduction and redeployment demonstrated a lack of value in the service. Virtual clinics facilitated access to services, but a preference for in‐person care was highlighted. Conclusion: Our analysis provides rich insights into the significant impacts that the COVID‐19 pandemic has had on the way recurrent miscarriage care is provided and experienced, with important implications for early pregnancy, miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage care. Services have undergone significant changes and, while these may be temporary, how services should be delivered in the future requires consideration, particularly given the deficits in care and care experiences highlighted prepandemic. Patient or Public Contribution: Members of the multidisciplinary RE:CURRENT Project Research Advisory Group (including four parent advocates, two of whom are co‐authors on this article) were actively involved throughout the study, including the generation of topic guides and the refining of themes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, there is a lack of interaction between research and healthcare practice. As a result, research findings reach healthcare practice only late, and topics relevant to practice are often not known in research. Involving people living with dementia (PlwD), their relatives and healthcare providers in dementia care research can accelerate this process. For inclusion, firm and reliable structures are needed, which are to be established with the help of the Translational Network for Dementia Care Research in Germany. However, there is only limited knowledge about the priorities, expectations and conditions of stakeholders (healthcare providers and dementia researchers) for such cooperation within a network. Objectives: The aim is to gather stakeholders' views on (i) future research topics to be addressed within the dementia care research network, (ii) the nature of collaboration within the network and (iii) the facilitating and hindering factors for establishing such a network. Methods: Within an exploratory sequential mixed‐method study, we interviewed 87 stakeholders within eleven semistructured focus group interviews. The interviews were transcribed, pseudonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The qualitative data were analyzed with MAXQDA. Based on the qualitative results found in the focus group interviews, a supplementary online questionnaire was developed to prioritise and rank these findings afterwards. Results: Stakeholders prioritized a comprehensible transfer of research results into practice, increased involvement of PlwD and their relatives (additionally marginalized groups such as people with a migrant background) in research and exchange between researchers. Cooperation should preferably occur in a regional context with local contacts, and the latest research results should be made available via an online database. The stakeholders' time, finances and human resources should be considered. Conclusion: Stakeholders have partly similar preferences and goals for cooperation and involvement, emphasizing that such interaction in a network offers the possibility of long‐term, effective collaboration and added value for practice and research. Patient or Public Contribution: For this study, dementia healthcare providers and dementia care researchers were asked about their perspectives. Their involvement is further elucidated in the manuscript text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Transvaginal mesh (mesh) surgeries have been used to treat stress urinary incontinence (incontinence) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (prolapse). In Australia, as in many other countries, the harms caused by mesh eventually prompted individual and collective attempts to achieve redress. The rise of mesh surgery as a procedure, the experience of mesh‐affected women and the formal inquiries and legal actions that followed all occurred in social, cultural and discursive contexts. One strategy to understand these contexts is to track how the mesh and key actors in the mesh stories have been portrayed in mass media sources. We conducted a media analysis of the most highly read Australian newspapers and online news media platforms, focusing on how mesh and the interaction of stakeholders in mesh stories were presented to the Australian public. Method: We searched systematically in the top 10 most‐read print and online media outlets in Australia. We included all articles that mentioned mesh, from the date of first use of mesh in Australia to the date of our final search (1996–2021). Result: After early scant media reporting focusing on the benefits of mesh procedures, major Australian medicolegal processes created a hook to shift reporting about mesh. The news media then played a significant role in redressing women's experienced epistemic injustice, including by amplifying previously ignored evidence of harm. This created an opportunity for previously unreported suffering to be revealed to powerful actors, in settings beyond the immediate control and epistemic authority of healthcare stakeholders, validating women's testimony and creating new hermeneutic resources for understanding mesh. Over time, media reports show healthcare stakeholders responding sympathetically to these new understandings in public discourse, contrasting with their statements in earlier media coverage. Conclusion: We argue that mass media reporting, in synergy with medicolegal actions and the Australian Senate Inquiry, appears to have provided women with greater epistemic justice, giving their testimony privileged epistemic status such that it was considered by powerful actors. Although medical reporting is not recognised in the hierarchy of evidence embedded in the medical knowledge system, in this case, media reporting appears to have contributed to shaping medical knowledge in significant ways. Patient or Public Contribution: We used publicly available data, print and online media outlets, for our analysis. Therefore, this manuscript does not contain the direct contribution of patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sharing research findings with participants is recognized as an ethical imperative for the research community. However, most discourse on this topic in mainstream public health takes a paternalistic approach, with researchers retaining the power to choose if, when, and how research findings are shared. Methods: Fieldwork took place from August 2018 to January 2019 and again from August 2019 to December 2019 among two communities in the south Indian state of Kerala. We integrated participant engagement with study findings into the research protocol, using various collaborative strategies identified during the design stage, forming partnerships with participants and determining appropriate forms of dissemination for different participant groups during fieldwork. Results: Findings from previous research projects undertaken with these communities by other researchers had not been shared with them. This was interpreted by the communities as researchers not being interested in making a difference to their situation. In the current study, building reciprocal relationships that minimized power disparities, and providing outputs in tailored formats that promoted active engagement were key factors that enabled participants to engage with results. This engagement added value by enabling us to co‐develop study recommendations. This process also enabled the community to have ownership of the results and use them to advocate for health system change to improve access to health care. Conclusion: Research should be transformative for participating communities. Participants have a right to know the results of the research they participate in since their knowledge provides the research data which can in turn promote community change. Operationalising this requires researchers to build partnerships with participants and their communities from the outset. The role of participants must be reimagined, and adequate resources should be built into the research process. This is both socially responsible and ethical, but also improves the impact and legitimacy of research for the participants and the communities that they represent. Patient or Public Contribution: Participants of our research contributed to the design of various aspects of the engagement processes including the venue, the formats used for engagement, interpretation of the findings and recommendations from our research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health and social care systems face difficulties in managing multimorbidity, disease burden and complex needs in long‐term conditions such as Parkinson's disease. Objective: This study aimed to develop a European understanding of how health and social care professionals can collaborate with stakeholders from different organizations and sectors to enhance the management of Parkinson's disease in a community setting by identifying the existing gaps in this process and how people with Parkinson's disease and their family carers could benefit from these partnerships. Methods: A mixed‐methods sequential study was conducted in Denmark, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. The findings from the qualitative phase are presented. Individual semistructured interviews were analysed using Braun's and Clarke's thematic analysis. A meta‐ethnography approach was used to analyse and synthesize cross‐national findings. Results: A total of 41 healthcare professionals and 39 stakeholders from different disciplines and sectors were interviewed in the four countries. The participants acknowledged a lack of awareness of available resources and poor communication between the different support systems in the management of Parkinson's disease. To promote multiagency collaborations, the participants highlighted the need to organize services along the Parkinson's disease journey, patient involvement and strategic involvement of carers in organizing resources and Parkinson's disease care pathways. According to the participants, the benefits from multiagency partnerships could lead to an enhanced continuity of care and specialized knowledge, mobilization of resources in the community, personalized support and improved access to services. Conclusions: Policymakers are called upon to create formal structures that facilitate multisectoral collaborations to promote an integrated system of care for the management of Parkinson's disease in the community. To address this challenge, we propose five strategies showing how organizations can work together to optimize the use of resources and enhance the management of Parkinson's disease throughout the illness trajectory. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and Public Involvement groups made up of stakeholders, healthcare professionals, patients with Parkinson's disease and family carers participated in the design of the study, the development of the interview guides and the validation of the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Using co‐design processes, we aimed to develop an evidence‐based decision guide for family carers and hospital professionals to support decision‐making about eating and drinking for hospital patients with severe dementia. Methods: Following a systematic review, we interviewed people with mild dementia, family carers and hospital professionals in England. We then held co‐design workshops with family carers and hospital professionals. In parallel with the workshops, we used a matrix to synthesize data from all studies and to develop a decision guide prototype. The prototype was iteratively refined through further co‐design workshops and discussions among researchers and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives. We conducted user testing for final feedback and to finalize the decision guide. Results: Most participants acknowledged the limited benefits of tube feeding and would not use or want it for someone with severe dementia. However, they found decision‐making processes and communication about nutrition and hydration were emotionally demanding and poorly supported in acute hospitals. The co‐design groups developed the aims of the decision guide to support conversations and shared decision‐making processes in acute hospitals, and help people reach evidence‐based decisions. It was designed to clarify decision‐making stages, provide information and elicit the values/preferences of everyone involved. It encouraged person‐centred care, best‐interests decision‐making and multidisciplinary team working. From user testing, family carers and hospital professionals thought the decision guide could help initiate conversations and inform decisions. The final decision guide was disseminated and is being used in clinical practice in England. Conclusion: We used rigorous and transparent processes to co‐design the decision guide with everyone involved. The decision guide may facilitate conversations about nutrition and hydration and help people reach shared decisions that meet the needs and preferences of people with severe dementia. Future evaluation is required to test its real‐world impacts. Patient or Public Contribution: People with mild dementia, family carers and hospital professionals contributed to the design of the decision guide through the interviews and co‐design workshops. PPI members helped design study procedures and materials and prepare this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In October 2022, it was estimated 2.3 million people in the United Kingdom have self‐reported Long Covid (LC). Many people have reported not receiving adequate healthcare support. There is a lack of research which provides an in‐depth exploration of the barriers faced by people with LC in accessing healthcare support. It is important to understand these barriers to provide better support, care and advice for those experiencing LC. Objective: To understand the barriers faced in accessing primary, secondary and specialist healthcare support for people with LC. Design and Participation: 40 interviews were conducted with people living with LC in Bradford alongside 12 interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) providing LC support in Bradford healthcare settings. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: People living with LC had a large degree of difficulty in accessing healthcare services for LC support. We categorized the healthcare access experiences of participants into five main types: (1) being unable to access primary care, (2) accessing primary care but receiving (perceived) inadequate support, (3) extreme persistence, (4) alternatives to mainstream health care and (5) positive experiences. There was a severe lack of access to specialist LC services. Ethnic minority participants faced a further barrier of mistrust and fear of services deterring them from accessing support. HCPs discussed systemic barriers to delivering services. Experiences were embedded in macrostructural issues further exacerbated by the pandemic. Conclusion: To better support people with LC, the barriers faced in accessing healthcare support must be addressed. Of significance, improvements to general practitioner access are required; especially as GPs are the first line of support for people living with LC. Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public involvement group is engaged at regular intervals in the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In 24/7 disability care facilities, patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs) are important to help healthcare professionals understand what matters to care users and to improve the quality of care. However, the successful implementation of a PREM is complex. In a Dutch disability care organization, stakeholders cocreated tailored implementation strategies aimed at improving the use and integration of a qualitative PREM. This study gives insights into the uptake and experiences with these cocreated implementation strategies and the perceived impact of the set of strategies. Methods: We performed a prospective process evaluation between February 2020 and February 2021. We collected data in three disability care facilities from 35 care users, 11 professionals, 3 facility managers and 4 organization representatives. Data collection included observations during kick‐offs and learning goal meetings and several attendance checklists. We collected 133 questionnaires (Time 0 and Time 1). We conducted 35 individual semistructured interviews and an online focus group interview. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using directed content analysis. Results: The exposure to and adoption of strategies was between 76% and 100%. Participants were positive about tailoring the strategies to each facility. Implementation was hindered by challenges in care users' communication and COVID‐19. The perceived impact referred to an improved understanding of the goal and added value of the PREM and better preparation and execution of the PREM. The impact of the set of strategies was mainly experienced on the micro level. Conclusion: The uptake of the cocreated implementation strategies was acceptable. The participants valued the tailored approach, which enabled them to focus on facility‐specific learning goals. Stakeholder engagement and co‐created strategies may have strengthened the adoption of and experiences with the implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: In this article, we present the process evaluation of implementation strategies for the integrated use of a PREM in disability care. A development group consisting of communication vulnerable care users, trainers and professionals developed the implementation strategies. The disability care organization was responsible for the planning and organization of the implementation process. During the process evaluation the end users, trainers, professionals and managers tailored the implementation strategies to their own settings and needs. Researchers observed this implementation process and interviewed the stakeholders about their experiences and the perceived impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Specific routines such as the development of personal communication plans can improve the interaction between people with communication disorders and healthcare staff. Objective: This pilot study explores a model for implementing communication routines including personal communication plans in long‐term residential care. Design, Setting and Participants: This multiple case study includes two residential care facilities that differ in size and the number of languages spoken. Intervention or main variables studied implementation strategies involved workshops, individual coaching and follow‐up visits. Main outcome measure implementation was assessed using goal attainment measurements, and the staff's views about facilitators and barriers to implementation were explored through structured interviews using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: The overall implementation success rate for the facilities was moderate, and one of the facilities showed promising results related to personal communication plans. Both facilities experienced barriers to implementation, including management problems and a lack of reminders. However, the two facilities seem to have different motivations for change. Discussion and Conclusions: Regardless of the features of the facility, successful implementation requires stable and committed leadership. Moreover, experiences with language diversity may motivate staff to implement communication routines. Patient or Public Contribution: The content of the implementation model used (i.e., choice of specific routines and implementation strategies) was coproduced by staff, managers and the researchers involved in this project. The staff and managers were responsible for the implementation of the new routines under the supervision of the researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biomedical progress has facilitated breakthrough advanced neurotherapeutic interventions, whose potential to improve outcomes in rare neurological diseases has increased hope among people with lived experiences and their carers. Nevertheless, gene, somatic cell and other advanced neurotherapeutic interventions carry significant risks. Rare disease patient organizations (RDPOs) may enhance patient experiences, inform expectations and promote health literacy. However, their perspectives are understudied in paediatric neurology. If advanced neurotherapeutics is to optimize RDPO contributions, it demands further insights into their roles, interactions and support needs. Methods: We used a mixed‐methodology approach, interviewing 20 RDPO leaders representing paediatric rare neurological diseases and following them up with two online surveys featuring closed and open‐ended questions on advanced neurotherapeutics (19/20) and negative mood states (17/20). Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis and basic descriptive statistics, respectively. Results: Leaders perceived their roles to be targeted at educational provision (20/20), community preparation for advanced neurotherapeutic clinical trials (19/20), information simplification (19/20) and focused research pursuits (20/20). Although most leaders perceived the benefits of collaboration between stakeholders, some cited challenges around collaborative engagement under the following subthemes: conflicts of interest, competition and logistical difficulties. Regarding neurotherapeutics, RDPO leaders identified support needs centred on information provision, valuing access to clinician experts and highlighting a demand for co‐developed, centralized, high‐level and understandable, resources that may improve information exchange. Leaders perceived a need for psychosocial support within themselves and their communities, proposing that this would facilitate informed decision‐making, reduce associated psychological vulnerabilities and maintain hope throughout neurotherapeutic development. Conclusion: This study provides insights into RDPO research activities, interactions and resource needs. It reveals a demand for collaboration guidelines, central information resources and psychosocial supports that may address unmet needs and assist RDPOs in their advocacy. Patient or Public Contribution: In this study, RDPO leaders were interviewed and surveyed to examine their perspectives and roles in advanced neurotherapeutic development. Some participants sent researchers postinterview clarification emails regarding their responses to questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevance and appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence‐based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluation and (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects. Results: Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited. Conclusion: Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5‐year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers and PPI facilitators collaborated as co‐authors on the conceptualization, execution and writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of telehealth in the paediatric setting is growing, and yet, limited research has focused on using telehealth in developmental diagnostic assessment and the consumers' perceptions of their telehealth experience. This study explored parents'/carers' and staff experiences of using telehealth as part of the developmental diagnostic assessment. Methods: Parents/carers who attended an assessment between June 2020 and July 2021 that incorporated a telehealth component within a hybrid service delivery model were invited to provide feedback about their experience of telehealth appointments at a multidisciplinary developmental assessment service. All parents were invited to complete an online survey, with a sample of families being offered a telephone interview. Staff members were invited to a focus group to explore their experiences of delivering services via telehealth. Data obtained were analysed descriptively and thematically using a mixed method of analysis. Codes were categorized, enabling facilitators and barriers to be explored. Results: The use of telehealth in the diagnostic assessment of complex developmental disorders received high levels of acceptance from parents/carers and staff, despite having limitations such as technical issues, difficulties building rapport between families/clinicians and limited direct observations of the child. Telehealth services are perceived to reduce costs and increase flexibility, including increased ability to accommodate family needs. Conclusions: Results demonstrated that telehealth is a highly acceptable mode of service in a developmental assessment service. The current study informs the development of a hybrid service delivery model by enhancing facilitators and reducing barriers commonly reported by consumers and provides direction for future research. Patient or Public Contribution: Parents or carers of children who attended a tertiary paediatric assessment unit for a diagnostic developmental assessment completed the online survey and were interviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare facilities adopted restrictive visitor policies as a result of the COVID‐19 (COVID) pandemic. Though these measures were necessary to promote the safety of patients, families and healthcare providers, it led to isolation and loneliness amongst acute care inpatients that can undermine patient rehabilitation and recovery. The study objectives were to (1) explore how infection prevention and control (IP&C) measures impacted stakeholders' perceptions of care quality and interactions with others and (2) investigate how these experiences and perceptions varied across stakeholder groups and care settings. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Patients and their families from an inpatient COVID rehabilitation hospital and healthcare providers from an acute or rehabilitation COVID hospital were interviewed between August 2020 and February 2021. Results: A total of 10 patients, 5 family members and 12 healthcare providers were interviewed. Four major themes were identified: (1) IP&C measures challenged the psychosocial health of all stakeholders across care settings; (2): IP&C measures precipitated a need for greater relational care from HCPs; (3) infection prevention tenets perpetuated COVID‐related stigma that stakeholders experienced across care settings; and (4) technology was used to facilitate human connection when IP&C limited physical presence. Conclusion: IP&C measures challenged psychosocial health and maintenance of vital human connections. Loneliness and isolation were felt by all stakeholders due to physical distancing and COVID‐related stigma. Some isolation was mitigated by the relational care provided by HCPs and technological innovations used. The findings of the study underscore the need to balance safety with psychosocial well‐being across care settings and beyond the patient–provider dyad. Patient and Public Contribution: This study was informed by the Patient‐Oriented Research Agenda and developed through consultations with patients and family caregivers to identify priority areas for rehabilitation research. Priority areas identified that informed the current study were (1) the need to focus on the psychosocial aspects of recovery from illness and injury and (2) the importance of exploring patients' recovery experiences and needs across the continuum of care. The study protocol, ethics submission, analysis and manuscript preparation were all informed by healthcare providers with lived experience of working in COVID care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rates of overweight and obesity are disproportionately high among youth with serious emotional disturbance (SED). Little is known about community mental health providers' delivery of weight loss interventions to this vulnerable population. Objective: This study examined attitudinal predictors of their providers' intentions to deliver weight loss interventions to youth with SED using the theory of planned behaviour. Design: This study used a cross‐sectional, single‐time‐point design to examine the relationship of the theory of planned behaviour constructs with behavioural intention. Setting and Participants: Community mental health providers (n = 101) serving youth with SED in the United States completed online clinical practice and theory of planned behaviour surveys. Main Variables Studied: We examined the relationship of direct attitude constructs (i.e., attitude towards the behaviour, social norms and perceived behavioural control), role beliefs and moral norms with behavioural intention. Analyses included a confirmatory factor analysis and two‐step linear regression. Results: The structure of the model and the reliability of the questionnaire were supported. Direct attitude constructs, role beliefs and moral norms predicted behavioural intention to deliver weight loss interventions. Discussion: While there is debate about the usefulness of the theory of planned behaviour, our results showed that traditional and newer attitudinal constructs appear to influence provider intentions to deliver weight loss interventions to youth with SED. Findings suggest preliminary strategies to increase provider intentions. Public Contribution: This study was designed and the results were interpreted as part of a larger, community‐based participatory research effort that included input from youth, families, providers, administrators and researchers. Collaborative discussions with community mental health providers and administrators particularly contributed to the study question asked as well as interpretation of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient and public involvement in research is anchored in moral and epistemological rationales. Moral rationales relate to the public having a right to influence how knowledge about them is generated. Epistemological rationales relate to how research design and implementation can improve when informed by experiential, as well as technical, knowledge. In other words, public involvement can increase the epistemological resources of researchers, and contribute to research that is fit for purpose and has high external validity. Methods: This article presents an analysis of 3 meetings and 11 interviews with public collaborators and researchers in three UK‐based health research studies. Data comprised transcripts of audio‐recorded research meetings and interviews with public collaborators and researchers. Data were first analysed to develop a data‐informed definition of experiential knowledge, then thematically to investigate how this experiential knowledge was considered and received within the research space. Results: At meetings, public collaborators shared their experiential knowledge as stories, comments, questions, answers and when referring to their own roles. They were aware of crossing a boundary from everyday life, and some adapted their contributions to fit within the research space. Although researchers and public collaborators made efforts to create an inclusive climate, obstacles to impact were identified. Conclusions: Considering experiential knowledge as a boundary object highlights that this knowledge has a different form to other kinds of knowledge that contribute to research. To enable impact from experiential knowledge, researchers need to create a space where public collaborators experience epistemic justice. Patient and Public Contribution: The Peninsula Public Engagement Group (PenPEG) was involved in the planning and conceptualization of the study, including the development of the ethics application and the interview schedules. One member of this group (Richard Fitzgerald) and one from outside the group (Leon Farmer), were full members of the author team and were involved in the data analysis. Leon Farmer has since become a member of PenPEG. Richard Fitzgerald and Leon Farmer were not involved in the three research studies sampled for this study. Sadly Richard Fitzgerald died during the course of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become essential in health research. However, little is known about multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the implementation of PPI in community mental health research settings. The present study aimed to qualitatively analyse multiple stakeholders' views on PPI, including potential concerns, barriers and approaches. Methods: This study involved conducting focus group interviews and collecting qualitative data from 37 participants in multiple stakeholder groups (patients = 6, caregivers = 5, service providers = 7, government staff = 5 and researchers = 14) in the community mental health field. The data were qualitatively analysed using a data‐driven approach that derived domains, themes and subthemes related to perspectives on PPI and to specific challenges and approaches for implementing PPI. Results: The qualitative analysis identified four domains. The 'Positive views and expectations regarding PPI' domain consisted of themes related to supportive views of PPI in a mental health service research setting and improvements in the quality of research and service. The 'General concerns about PPI' domain included themes concerning the need for non‐PPI research and tokenism, excessive expectations concerning social changes and use of evidence from PPI research, and heavy burdens resulting from PPI. The 'Specific issues regarding the implementation of PPI' domain consisted of four themes, including academic systems, selection methods (e.g., representativeness and conflict of interest issues), relationship building, and ambiguous PPI criteria. In particular, all stakeholder groups expressed concerns about relational equality during PPI implementation in Japan. The 'Approaches to PPI implementation' domain included themes such as facilitating mutual understanding, creating a tolerant atmosphere, establishing PPI support systems (e.g., training, ethics and human resource matching) and empowering patient organizations. Conclusion: The study replicated most of the barriers and approaches to PPI reported by qualitative research in Western counties. However, utilization of evidence produced by PPI research and partnership in the PPI process may be particularly serious issues in Japan. Future PPI studies should carefully address solutions that fit each culture. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient‐researcher was involved in all stages of this project, from development of the research topic and the protocol to manuscript preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many families now perform specialist medical procedures at home. Families need appropriate training and support to do this. The aim of this study was to evaluate a library of videos, coproduced with parents and healthcare professionals, to support and educate families caring for a child with a gastrostomy. Methods: A mixed‐methods online survey evaluating the videos was completed by 43 family carers who care for children with gastrostomies and 33 healthcare professionals (community‐based nurses [n = 16], paediatricians [n = 6], dieticians [n = 6], hospital‐based nurses [n = 4], paediatric surgeon [n = 1]) from the United Kingdom. Participants watched a sample of videos, rated statements on the videos and reflected on how the videos could be best used in practice. Results: Both family carers and healthcare professionals perceived the video library as a valuable resource for parents and strongly supported the use of videos in practice. All healthcare professionals and 98% (n = 42) of family carers agreed they would recommend the videos to other families. Family carers found the videos empowering and easy to follow and valued the mixture of healthcare professionals and families featured in the videos. Participants gave clear recommendations for how different video topics should fit within the existing patient pathway. Discussion: Families and healthcare professionals perceived the videos to be an extremely useful resource for parents, supporting them practically and emotionally. Similar coproduced educational materials are needed to support families who perform other medical procedures at home. Patient or Public Contribution: Two parent representatives attended the research meetings from conception of the project and were involved in the design, conduct and dissemination of the surveys. The videos themselves were coproduced with several different families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]