Search

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), they experience many challenges in dietary decision‐making. Thus, this study examined the perspective and experiences of adults with IBD in dietary decision‐making. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perception and consideration of people with IBD in their daily dietary decisions through monitoring, interpretation and action during the decision‐making process. Design: A qualitative study of individuals affected by IBD was conducted through semistructured interviews. Results: Twenty patients were recruited from four tertiary hospitals in Nanjing, China, and each participant completed a semistructured interview. The majority of participants reported on the process and experience of dietary decision‐making. Key themes were categorised into three stages: (1) assessing needs, preferences and food cues (monitor); (2) moving from experience to expertise (interpret) and (3) balancing expectations amidst limitations (act). The majority of participants reported that their decisions were shaped by assessing current disease status and food cues. Those interviewed with IBD were willing to make tradeoffs for bowel stability, but their decisions were also influenced by past dietary experiences and traditional Chinese beliefs. The lack of awareness of dietary guidelines was a significant barrier to healthy eating decisions. Positive or negative feelings accompanied dietary decisions. Conclusion: Although most people with IBD change their diet after diagnosis, the changes made are often inconsistent with existing dietary recommendations. Several factors can influence the dietary decision‐making process. This study will help assess the experiences of people with IBD in dietary decision‐making to encourage the formation of targeted dietary health and well‐being interventions. Knowledge of nutrition and diet should be provided in education and training programmes for IBD management. Patient or Public Contribution: The first three authors of this paper were the lead researchers in this study's design. These authors were mentored by patient researchers who also contributed to the manuscript, and the research process was co‐lead and directed by other patient participants and consultants. The results of this paper were directly obtained from patient participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical interventions have a place in crisis support; however, narrow biomedical and risk‐driven responses negatively impact people seeking crisis care. With increasing shifts towards involving people with lived experience (service users) in designing services, foregrounding people's desired responses is critical. Accordingly, the aim of the study was to explore the wished‐for crisis responses from the perspective of people who have experienced crisis and accessed crisis care. Method: Using a hermeneutical phenomenological approach, in‐depth interviews were conducted to determine the desired crisis responses of 31 people who self‐reported experiencing mental health crises and accessed crisis services at ED, phone lines and/or crisis alternatives. Results: The findings identified wished‐for responses that gave a felt and embodied sense of their own safety influenced by a human‐to‐human response, emotional holding, a place of safety and choice within holistic care. For such responses to be possible, participants identified organising principles, including recognising crisis as meaningful and part of our shared human experience, understanding risk as fluid and a whole‐of‐community responsibility for responding to crises. Conclusion: This paper proposes how insights from people who have experienced crises can be translated into more beneficial crisis care. Patient or Consumer Contribution: Most authors are in identified lived experience roles. The first author engaged with participants during the recruitment and interviews and was explicit regarding their lived experience. Service users were involved as advisors, providing input throughout the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with severe mental illness (SMI) experience higher rates and poorer outcomes of physical long‐term conditions (LTCs). The management of SMI and LTCs is highly complex and many people with SMI rely on informal carers for support, which may lead to high levels of caregiver burden, and caregiver burnout. Caregiver burnout can result in poor health outcomes for informal carers and a reduction in the quality of care they are able to provide. Therefore, it is important to understand the caring experience to identify and address factors that contribute to burden and burnout. Methods: This paper reports a secondary qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups conducted with informal carers of people who have coexisting SMI and LTCs. We recruited 12 informal carers in England between December 2018 and April 2019. The transcripts were coded and analysed thematically. Results: We identified two overarching themes and five subthemes. The themes included 'Fighting on all fronts: Mounting strain between demands and resources', which described the challenge of providing care in the context of coexisting SMI and LTCs, and 'Safekeeping: The necessity of chronic hypervigilance', which captured how informal carers' roles were defined by managing high‐risk situations, leading to hypervigilance and paternalistic approaches to care. Conclusion: The experience of informal carers for people with SMI and coexisting LTCs is marked by limited access to support and the management of significant risk, which could contribute to high caregiver burden. Further primary research is needed to understand how the experiences of the caregiver role for people with SMI and LTCs influence caregiver burden. Patient or Public Contribution: Our PPI panel DIAMONDS Voice provided guidance on this study from conception, design and development of interview guides and recruitment materials to final write‐up. DIAMONDS Voice consists of service users and carers who have experience of SMI and LTCs. Three carer members reviewed the final manuscript, and two are credited as authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: People with lived‐experience of the phenomenon under investigation are seldom involved in the analysis of qualitative data, and there exists little guidance for those wishing to involve contributors at this stage of research. Aims: To critically reflect on the process of involving people with lived‐experience in a thematic analysis and to offer direction to other researchers. Methods: An individual with lived‐experience of residing in prison contributed to a co‐analysis of qualitative data using thematic analysis. This paper reports on involvement at each stage of a thematic analysis and follows an established reporting checklist. Results: A number of challenges and benefits were encountered in the process of co‐analysing the data. These are discussed in relation to previous research and how to overcome the challenges encountered. Conclusions: The paper concludes by giving recommendations and guidance for future researchers wishing to involve people with lived‐experience in qualitative data analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. Aim: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large‐scale multi‐site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. Method: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co‐applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. Results: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over‐professionalizing public contributors. Conclusion: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. Public Contribution: This paper was co‐conceived, co‐planned and co‐authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Patient experience is an important component of high‐quality care and is linked to improved clinical outcomes across a range of different conditions. Patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs) are psychometrically validated instruments designed to identify where strengths and vulnerabilities in care exist. Currently, there is no validated instrument available to measure patient experience among people aged over 65 years attending the emergency department (ED). Objective: This paper aims to describe the process of generating, refining and prioritising candidate items for inclusion in a new PREM measuring older adults' experiences in ED (PREM‐ED 65). Design: One hundred and thirty‐six draft items were generated via a systematic review, interviews with patients and focus groups with ED staff exploring older adults' experiences in the ED. A 1‐day multiple stakeholder workshop was then convened to refine and prioritise these items. The workshop entailed a modified nominal groups technique exercise comprised of three discrete parts—(i) item familiarisation and comprehension assessment, (ii) initial voting and (iii) final adjudication. Setting and Participants: Twenty‐nine participants attended the stakeholder workshop, conducted in a nonhealthcare setting (Buckfast Abbey). The average age of participants was 65.6 years. Self‐reported prior experiences of emergency care among the participants included attending the ED as a patient (n = 16, 55.2%); accompanying person (n = 11, 37.9%) and/or as a healthcare provider (n = 7, 24.1%). Results: Participants were allocated time to familiarise themselves with the draft items, suggest any improvements to the item structure or content, and suggest new items. Two additional items were proposed by participants, yielding a total of 138 items for prioritisation. Initial prioritisation deemed most items 'critically important' (priority 7–9 out of 9, n = 104, 75.4%). Of these, 70 items demonstrated suitable inter‐rater agreement (mean average deviation from the median < 1.04) and were recommended for automatic inclusion. Participants then undertook final adjudication to include or exclude the remaining items, using forced choice voting. A further 29 items were included. Thirty‐nine items did not meet the criteria for inclusion. Conclusions: This study has generated a list of 99 prioritised candidate items for inclusion in the draft PREM‐ED 65 instrument. These items highlight areas of patient experience that are particularly important to older adults accessing emergency care. This may be of direct interest to those looking to improve the patient experience for older adults in the ED. For the final stage of development, psychometric validation amongst a real‐world population of ED patients is now planned. Patient and Public Contribution: Initial item generation was informed using qualitative research, including interviews with patients in the ED. The opinions of patients and members of the public were integral to achieving outcomes from the prioritisation meeting. The lay chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine participated in the meeting and reviewed the results of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6‐year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years. Methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly‐spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross‐sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time. Findings: Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research. Patient or Public Contribution: The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicines are often suboptimally managed for heart failure patients across the transition from hospital to home, potentially leading to poor patient outcomes. The Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care programme included: understanding the problems faced by patients and healthcare professionals; developing and co‐designing the Medicines at Transitions of care Intervention (MaTI); a cluster randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a complex behavioural MaTI aimed at improving medicines management at the interface between hospitals discharge and community care for patients with heart failure; and a process evaluation. The MaTI included a patient‐held My Medicines Toolkit; enhanced communication between the hospital and the patient's community pharmacist and increased engagement of the community pharmacist postdischarge. This paper reports on the patients' experiences of the MaTI and its implementation from the process evaluation. Design: Twenty one‐to‐one semi‐structured patient interviews from six intervention sites were conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. Data were analysed using the Framework method, involving patients as co‐analysts. Interview data were triangulated with routine trial data, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a logic model. Results: Within the hospital setting patients engaged with the toolkit according to whether staff raised awareness of the My Medicines Toolkit's importance and the time and place of its introduction. Patients' engagement with community pharmacy depended on their awareness of the community pharmacist's role, support sources and perceptions of involvement in medicines management. The toolkit's impact on patients' medicines management at home included reassurance during gaps in care, increased knowledge of medicines, enhanced ability to monitor health and seek support and supporting sharing medicines management between formal and informal care networks. Conclusion: Many patients perceived that the MaTI offered them support in their medicines management when transitioning from hospital into the community. Importantly, it can be incorporated into and built upon patients' lived experiences of heart failure. Key to its successful implementation is the quality of engagement of healthcare professionals in introducing the intervention. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients were involved in the study design, as qualitative data co‐analysts and as co‐authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communicating about medications across transitions of care is important in older patients who frequently move between health care settings. While there is increasing interest in understanding patient communication across transitions of care, little is known about older patients' involvement in formal and informal modes of communication regarding managing medications. Objective: The aim of this paper was to explore how older patients participated in managing their medications across transitions of care through formal and informal modes of communication. Methods: The study was conducted across two metropolitan hospitals: an acute hospital and a geriatric rehabilitation hospital in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. A focused ethnographic design was used involving semi‐structured interviews (n = 50), observations (203 h) and individual interviews or focus groups (n = 25). Following thematic analysis, data were analysed using Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis. Results: Data analysis revealed two major discursive practices, which comprised of an interplay between formal and informal communication and environmental influences on formal and informal communication. Self‐created patient notes were used by older patients to initiate informal discussion with health professionals about medication decisions, which challenged traditional unequal power relations between health professionals and patients. Formal prompts on electronic medication administration records facilitated the continuous information discourse about patients' medications across transitions of care and encouraged health professionals to seek out older patients' preferences through informal bedside interactions. Environmental influences on communication comprised health professionals' physical movements across private and public spaces in the ward, their distance from older patients at the bedside and utilization of the computer systems during patient encounters. Conclusion: Older patients' self‐created medication notes enabled them to take on a more active role in formal and informal medication communication across transitions of care. Older patients and family members did not have continuous access to information about medication changes during their hospital stay and systems often failed to address older patients' key concerns about their medications, which hindered their active involvement in formal and informal communication. Patient or Public Contribution: Older adults, family members and health professionals volunteered to be interviewed and observed. [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]

Background and context: Breastfeeding peer support is valued by women, but UK trials have not demonstrated efficacy. The ABA feasibility trial offered proactive peer support underpinned by behaviour change theory and an assets‐based approach to women having their first baby, regardless of feeding intention. This paper explores women's and infant feeding helpers' (IFHs) views of the different components of the ABA intervention. Setting and participants: Trained IFHs offered 50 women an antenatal meeting to discuss infant feeding and identify community assets in two English sites—one with a paid peer support service and the other volunteer‐led. Postnatally, daily contact was offered for the first 2 weeks, followed by less frequent contact until 5 months. Methods: Interviews with 21 women and focus groups/interviews with 13 IFHs were analysed using thematic and framework methods. Results: Five themes are reported highlighting that women talked positively about the antenatal meeting, mapping their network of support, receiving proactive contact from their IFH, keeping in touch using text messaging and access to local groups. The face‐to‐face antenatal visit facilitated regular text‐based communication both in pregnancy and in the early weeks after birth. Volunteer IFHs were supportive of and enthusiastic about the intervention, whereas some of the paid IFHs disliked some intervention components and struggled with the distances to travel to participants. Conclusions: This proactive community assets‐based approach with a woman‐centred focus was acceptable to women and IFHs and is a promising intervention warranting further research as to its effect on infant feeding outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient satisfaction has been seen as a key criterion when evaluating hospitals and is one of the main focuses of the current health‐care reform in China. This paper aimed to explore patient‐ and hospital‐level factors associated with inpatient satisfaction, which can provide policy implications for the evaluation and development of a patient‐oriented health‐care system. Methods: The paper analyses data from the 2017 China National Patient Survey which includes 20 300 inpatients from 131 tertiary hospitals across 31 provinces. Descriptive analysis and multivariable logistic regressions are conducted to identify key factors related to satisfaction. Results: Patient sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, age, income and insurance type, are found to be strongly associated with their satisfaction of inpatient experience. In terms of institutional characteristics, hospital type, size, staffing and financial performance are also significantly correlated with inpatient satisfaction. Patients are more satisfied with specialist hospitals and large hospitals measured by the number of beds and surgeries. Hospitals with higher nurse‐to‐bed ratio also receive more satisfaction. The financial performance of hospitals, however, is negatively associated with satisfaction. Conclusion: Patient satisfaction contains unique information on service quality and thus should be incorporated into the matrix of hospital evaluation. Meanwhile, differences in patient composition must be adjusted to make fair comparisons across hospitals. Moreover, future reform needs to put greater efforts in the design of comprehensive public insurance scheme, efficient hospital structure and an overall well‐functioning health‐care delivery system in order to better serve patients in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with haemophilia A and inhibitors (PwHi) suffer more orthopaedic complications, bleeding and pain than those without inhibitors. The advent of emicizumab as a prophylactic treatment has led to a reduction in bleed frequency and a significant improvement in overall quality of life. No research to date has examined the nature of this improvement on treated individuals and their families. Aims: The Emi & Me study aims to capture the real‐life experience of using emicizumab for PwHi and their families. Methods: Participants were recruited through treatment centres, social media and by word of mouth. Each participant and a family member, if available, took part in a semistructured qualitative interview. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. All elements of the study were reviewed by local statutory authorities and informed consent was sought from all participants. Results: Fifteen PwHi, mean age 27.2 years (range 8–63 years), most with a family member, participated in a single qualitative interview online (n = 13), by telephone (n = 1) or in person (n = 1). Mean time on emicizumab was 2.26 years (range 1–5 years). Six major themes emerged: bleeds; pain; treatment burden; control; freedom (for both PwHi and family members) and missed potential. Emicizumab prophylaxis has delivered significant improvements in the lives of the participants. Despite these improvements, some participants felt that their pre‐existing physical disabilities and the lack of physiotherapy provision had prevented them achieving similar improvements in their functional ability. Conclusion: This study shows that in reducing bleeds, pain and treatment burden, emicizumab had given PwHi greater control over their condition, allowing a sense of freedom they had not experienced with factor VIII or bypassing agent prophylaxis. However, for emicizumab to be truly effective, there is a need to ensure the continued availability and accessibility of robust multidisciplinary support services. Without this, it is unlikely that PwHi will realize the life‐changing potential offered either by emicizumab or any other novel treatment approach. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient participant (who did not wish to be included as an author of the paper) was involved in the design of the study protocol and interview guide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To guide the development of high‐quality care for people with multiple chronic conditions, partners of the European Joint Action CHRODIS developed the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model. To assess its suitability for improving care for people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, the model was piloted in a primary care setting with both patients and care providers. Aim: This paper reports on the patient perspective, and aims to explore the priorities, underlying values and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity. Participants and methods: Twenty persons with multimorbidity (selected from general practice registries) participated in a focus group or telephone interview. Subsequently, a questionnaire was completed by 863 persons with multimorbidity registered with 14 general practices. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data by means of descriptive statistics. Results: Frequently prioritized elements of care were the use of shared electronic health records, regular comprehensive assessments, self‐management support and shared decision making, and care coordination. Preferences for how these elements should be specifically addressed differed according to individual values (eg weighing safety against privacy) and needs (eg ways of coping with multimorbidity). Conclusion: The JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model reflects the priorities and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, which supports its relevance to guide the development of person‐centred integrated care for people with multiple chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Patient contribution: European patient experts contributed to the development and applicability assessment of the JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model; Dutch patients participated in focus groups, interviews and a survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient‐reported Experience (PRE) is an emerging concept integrating patient perspectives and amplifying voices often marginalized in discussions surrounding health systems. However, it remains a challenge to use and integrate PREs when studying patient agency and access to quality services, particularly with data from multiple sources. In this article, using study materials from the Swiss MIWOCA project, we present and reflect upon a multistage PRE approach to study healthcare access. Methods: The MIWOCA project, a study on healthcare access and quality among immigrant women with chronic illnesses living in Switzerland, provided data from multiple sources for the integration of PRE data. These sources included interviews with women (n = 48), two focus group discussions with women (n = 15), interviews with service providers (n = 12) and observations from stakeholder dialogues (n = 3). In addition, we utilized field notes, focus group illustration maps, patient vignettes and policy briefs to develop a multistage data linking model. PRE data served as starting themes and reference topics in each of the interlinked stages of knowledge production. Results: Deploying PREs, we coherently linked the data from preceding stages and used them to inform subsequent stages. This, in turn, enabled us to identify, reflect and rectify factors limiting immigrant women's agency and access to quality services. Ultimately, the approach engaged patients as knowledge co‐producers for system‐level changes. This knowledge was transformed into a set of practice recommendations and a policy brief addressing ways to improve health systems to better serve immigrant women in Switzerland. Conclusions: Building on PREs to systematically combine multiple data sources and engage patients continuously can improve our understanding of barriers in health systems. Beyond individual patient‐doctor encounters, a multistage PRE approach can identify structural problems and provide clues for resolving them at the systems level. The PREs approach presented may serve as an example and encourage more public health experts to consider PREs in future research and practice. Patient and Public Contribution: Women with chronic illness and immigration experience contributed to interview‐guideline development, provided PREs in interviews, identified priority areas for health‐service change and actively participated in the development of practice recommendations. [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]

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

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]

Background: Current research has identified how ethnic minority women experience poorer health outcomes during the perinatal period. In the United Kingdom, specialist perinatal mental health services provide mental health treatment for women throughout the perinatal period. Service users have previously highlighted that perinatal services are hard to access and lack cultural sensitivity, whereas healthcare professionals have described limited opportunities and resources for developing cultural competency. Objectives: We explored the experiences of ethnic minority women with National Health Service (NHS) specialist perinatal teams and identified what culturally sensitive perinatal mental health care means to this group. Design: Individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted, and an interpretative phenomenological analysis framework was used to analyse the interview transcripts. Setting and Participants: Participants were recruited from NHS specialist perinatal teams and online via social media. Results: Six women were interviewed. Four group experiential themes central to the experiences of participants emerged: (1) strengthening community networks and peer support; (2) valuing cultural curiosity; (3) making sense of how culture, ethnicity, race and racism impact mental health; and (4) tailoring interventions to ethnic minority women and their families. Discussion and Conclusions: The findings capture how ethnic minority women experience specialist perinatal teams and offer insights into practising culturally sensitive care. Perinatal mental health professionals can support ethnic minority women by strengthening their access to community resources and peer support; being curious about their culture; helping them to make sense of how culture, ethnicity, race and mental health interact; and applying cultural and practical adaptations to interventions. Patient or Public Contribution: A Lived Experience Advisory Group (LEAG) of women from ethnic minority groups contributed to the design and conduct of this study. The LEAG had lived experience of perinatal mental health conditions and accessing specialist perinatal teams. The LEAG chose to co‐produce specific aspects of the research they felt fit with their skills and available time throughout five group sessions. These aspects included developing the interview topic guide, a structure for debriefing participants and advising on the social media recruitment strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Introduction: 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: Culturally and linguistically diverse population groups disproportionately experience higher weight and other non–weight‐related discrimination in healthcare settings outside of their ancestral country. Little is known about the experiences of individuals with Arab heritage. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the intersectional weight‐related healthcare experiences of individuals of Arab heritage with higher weight in Australia. Methods: A general inductive enquiry approach was used. Purposive, convenience and snowball sampling was used to recruit individuals of Arab heritage residing in Australia. Individuals were invited to participate in an online semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Fifteen participants took part in the study. Of these participants, 93% were female (n = 14), 80% were aged between 18 and 44 years (n = 12), 73% were university educated (n = 11), 53% were born outside of Australia (n = 8) and all were Muslim (n = 15). Four main themes were identified: (1) appearance‐based judgement, (2) generalised advice and assumptions, (3) cultural responsiveness and (4) healthcare system constraints. Conclusion: Individuals of Arab heritage with higher weight in Australia, namely, females, often perceive their healthcare experiences as dismissive of their cultural and religious needs and driven by causality assumptions around weight. It is crucial that care delivered encompasses cultural humility, is weight‐inclusive and acknowledges systemic constraints. Cultural safety training benchmarks, healthcare management reform and weight‐inclusive healthcare approaches are recommended to assist healthcare providers in delivering effective, holistic and culturally safe care. Patient or Public Contribution: Insights gained from conversations with Arab heritage community members with lived experiences regarding weight‐related healthcare encounters informed the study design and approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Providing personal demographic information is routine practice in the United States, and yet, little is known about the impacts of this process. This study aims to examine the experiences and perspectives of Multiracial/ethnic adults in the United States when disclosing racial/ethnic identity. Methods: Seventeen semistructured interviews were conducted with adults identifying as Multiracial/ethnic. The Multiracial/ethnic identities of participants included Black or African American and White; Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American and AI/AN; AI/AN and White and Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and White. Multiple participants reported identifying with multiple ethnic groups for any single broad category. Three identified as sexual minorities. Nine were Millennials; six were Gen X; one was Gen Z; one was Baby Boomer. Qualitative data were analyzed using staged hybrid inductive–deductive thematic analysis. Results: Disclosure of racial and ethnic identities presents a unique stressor for Multiracial/ethnic populations due to methods used to obtain data, perceived mismatch of identity and phenotype and exposure to prejudice. Social norms, constructs and movements impact the categories that a Multiracial/ethnic person indicates to external parties. Conclusions: The stress and negative feelings that Multiracial/ethnic adults face when identifying their race/ethnicity underscore the broader implications of standard demographic questions on feelings of inclusivity and visibility within a population. Patient or Public Contribution: Gathering data on individuals' racial and ethnic backgrounds is a standard practice, and yet, it can pose challenges for those who identify with multiple groups or do not see their identities reflected in the options provided. Such individuals may feel excluded or experience unfair treatment when disclosing their identity, leading to significant stress. As the frequency of this data collection increases, it is essential that the questions are posed empathetically and equitably, with a strong commitment to enhancing inclusivity throughout the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) face complex health challenges, including a heightened risk for distress. To counter this distress, there is a need to develop accessible, acceptable comprehensive care solutions that integrate diabetes and mental health care to enhance self‐efficacy and counter mental health challenges in this population. Objective: To describe the engagement of individuals with lived experience of T1D and mental health challenges in the development of a recruitment strategy to support the co‐design of an innovative integrated care programme. Results: Seven individuals with lived experience formed a Partner Advisory Council (PAC) to recruit young adults (18–29 years old) living with T1D, their friends or family and health researchers and professionals in co‐design interviews (n = 19) and co‐design events (n = 12). The PAC played a key role in developing a comprehensive recruitment strategy, overcoming traditional barriers and stigmas in the design of an integrated model of care. Conclusion: Assuming the presence of mental health challenges in young adults living with T1D during recruitment had far‐reaching impacts on the development of a whole‐person and integrated diabetes and mental health care solution. The efficient recruitment of this sample provided invaluable insights into the nuanced challenges experienced by young adults with T1D, the individual skills developed in response to their mental health challenges and the ways that this understanding can shape future programming to support mental health, quality of life and well‐being. The ongoing involvement of the PAC as co‐researchers underscores the enduring impact of patient engagement in developing integrated care solutions. Patient or Public Contribution: The co‐design of the TECC‐T1D3 model was enriched by the invaluable contributions of individuals with lived experience. This included the engagement of a diverse PAC in the recruitment of participants in co‐design interviews and co‐design events. PAC members actively participated in research decision‐making with their insights informing a robust recruitment strategy. Beyond recruitment, PAC members continue to serve as co‐researchers, shaping ongoing research and actively contributing to the TECC‐T1D3 project. Six PAC members are co‐authors on this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Indigenous women experience high rates of family violence‐related head injuries. At present, lived experience accounts from Indigenous women are absent, which results in incomplete understandings and inadequate responses that have detrimental impacts on them and their families. The aim of this study was to gain insight into Indigenous women's personal and family perspectives regarding violence‐related traumatic brain injury (TBI), including impacts on life, as well as decision‐making processes about healthcare access and engagement. Methods: Purposeful sampling was used to complete semi‐structured interviews with 18 Indigenous women living in regional and remote Australia who had experienced TBI from family violence. The data from these interviews were augmented by data from interviews and focus groups with 28 community members, including family members or carers of Indigenous women living with TBI from family violence. Results: Three themes were conceptualised based on the data and research aims: interweaving of the past and the present—ways women experience brain injury; factors that inform decision‐making to access healthcare; and managing everyday changes that result from TBI from family violence. Indigenous women described living with a range of symptoms following repeated head injuries including problems with memory, cognition and concentration. A range of strategies to manage long‐term symptoms of TBI were used by Indigenous women and when they did seek healthcare, Indigenous women were required to navigate a range of barriers. Conclusions: The findings identify a range of gaps in healthcare and housing supports for Indigenous women with TBI from violence, highlighting the significant investment needed to develop responsive and appropriate pathways of care in regional and remote areas. A range of suggestions are discussed including development of a specialised workforce who can provide apppropriate follow‐up support, co‐designed concussion clinics and educational resources. TBI must also be a key aspect of policy and practice for services working with Indigenous women who have experienced violence to ensure appropriate responses are provided. Public or Patient Contribution: Indigenous women shared their views and experiences of TBI from family violence as well as decision‐making about accessing healthcare and managing TBI symptoms. As such, study participants provided public contributions to the research. [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]

Introduction: Over a fifth of pregnant women are living with multiple long‐term health conditions, which is associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants. While there are many examples of research exploring individuals' experiences and care pathways for pregnancy with a single health condition, evidence relating to multiple health conditions is limited. This study aimed to explore experiences and care of women with multiple long‐term health conditions around the time of pregnancy. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted between March 2022 and May 2023 with women with multiple long‐term health conditions who were at least 28 weeks pregnant or had had a baby in the last 2 years, and healthcare professionals with experience of caring for these women. Participants were recruited from across the United Kingdom. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Fifty‐seven women and 51 healthcare professionals participated. Five themes were identified. Women with long‐term health conditions and professionals recognised that it takes a team to avoid inconsistent care and communication, for example, medication management. Often, women were required to take a care navigation role to link up their healthcare providers. Women described mixed experiences regarding care for their multiple identities and the whole person. Postnatally, women and professionals recognised a downgrade in care, particularly for women's long‐term health conditions. Some professionals detailed the importance of engaging with women's knowledge, and recognising their own professional boundaries of expertise. Many participants described difficulties in providing informational continuity and subsequent impacts on care. Specifically, the setup of care systems made it difficult for everyone to access necessary information, especially when care involved multiple sites. Conclusion: Pregnant women with long‐term health conditions can experience a substantial burden of responsibility to maintain communication with their care team, often feeling vulnerable, patronised, and let down by a lack of acknowledgement of their expertise. These results will be used to inform the content of coproduction workshops aimed at developing a list of care recommendations for affected women. It will also inform future interventional studies aimed at improving outcomes for these women and their babies. Patient or Public Contribution: Our Patient and Public Involvement group were involved in the design of the study and the analysis and interpretation of the data, and a public study investigator was part of the author group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Integrated care is based around values of involvement and shared decision‐making, but these are not often reflected within planning and implementation. Barriers include continued emphasis on professional and managerial perspectives, skills gaps on how best to engage people and communities and insufficient investment in involvement infrastructure. Despite such challenges, people with lived experience have still led changes in policy and services. Design: Qualitative study involving 25 participants with lived experience from 12 countries. Participants shared their background stories and engaged in semistructured interviews relating to leadership identity, experience of influencing and personal learning. Transcripts were analysed through a framework approach informed by narrative principles. Results: Participants were motivated by their own experiences and a wish to improve care for future individuals and communities. Sharing their story was often the entry point for such influencing. Participants gained skills and confidence in story telling despite a lack of support and development. Many felt comfortable being described as a leader while others rejected this identity and preferred a different title. No common alternative term to leader was identified. Influencing services required considerable personal cost but also led to new networks, skills development and satisfaction when change was achieved. Discussion: Leadership within integrated care is often awarded to those with structural power related to management or clinical seniority. People with lived experience are though uniquely placed to identify what needs to change and can develop inspiring visions based around their personal stories. Claiming identity as leader can be challenging due to traditional notions of who is eligible to lead and unwillingness by professionals and managers to grant such identity. Conclusions: People with lived experience should be recognised as leaders of integrated care and have access to developmental opportunities and practical support to strengthen their skills, including that of storytelling. Patient and Public Contribution: The research was instigated on the request of a community advisory board of people with lived experience who shaped its design, contributed to the analysis and informed the conclusions and implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Introduction: People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non‐specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways. Methods: This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy. Results: Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge. Conclusion: We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help‐seeking post‐discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.‐A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

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

Background: This study investigated healthcare access and quality for people who are transgender and gender‐diverse (PTGD) in Saskatchewan (SK), Canada, to inform a larger project that was piloting two peer health navigators for PTGD. Methods: Two online focus groups were held. Nineteen participants were recruited to represent a broad range in age, gender and location in SK. Transcripts of the focus groups were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: The core theme that was identified was participants' desire for culturally safe healthcare. This core theme had two component themes: (1) systemic healthcare factors and (2) individual healthcare provider (HCP) factors. The healthcare system primarily acted as a barrier to culturally safe healthcare. HCPs could be either barriers or facilitators of culturally safe care; however, negative experiences outweighed positive ones. Conclusions: PTGD in SK face discrimination, with delays and barriers to care at all levels of the healthcare system. Peer health navigators can address some of these discrepancies; however, greater support is required for PTGD to be able to access culturally safe healthcare. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience/PTGD were involved in all stages of this project. They were included on the team as community researchers and co‐developed the research project, conducted the focus groups, participated in the analyses and are co‐authors. As well, both navigators and all the participants in the focus groups were also PTGD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Because of the shift towards earlier diagnosis of dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease (AD), increasing numbers of individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are seen in memory clinics. Yet, evidence indicates that there is room for improvement when it comes to tailoring of the diagnostic work‐up to the needs of individual patients. To optimize the quality of care, we explored patients' perspectives regarding the diagnostic work‐up at a specialized memory clinic. Methods: This interview study was conducted at Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden). The comprehensive diagnostic work‐up for dementia at the memory clinic in Solna is conducted within 1 week. A sample of 15 patients (8 female; mean age = 61 years [range 50–72]; 11 SCD, 1 MCI and 3 AD dementia) was purposively selected for a series of three semistructured interviews, focussing on (1) needs and expectations (during the week of diagnostic testing), (2) experiences (within 2 weeks after test‐result disclosure) and (3) reflections and evaluation (3 months after disclosure). Transcribed audio‐recorded data were analyzed using thematic content analysis (using MaxQDA software). Results: Three key themes were identified: (1) the expectations and motivations of individuals for visiting the memory clinic strongly impacted their experience; (2) the diagnostic work‐up impacted individuals psychosocially and (3) the diagnostic work‐up provided an opportunity to motivate individuals to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Conclusion: Our findings underscore the importance of enquiring about the expectations and needs of individuals referred to a specialized memory clinic, allowing for expectation management and personalization of provided information/advice, and potentially informing the selection of patients in need of a comprehensive diagnostic work‐up. Structural guidance might be needed to support those with SCD and MCI to help them cope with uncertainty, potentially resolve their issues, and/or stimulate brain health. Patient or Public Contribution: We gathered the perspectives of 15 individuals who had been referred to the memory clinic at three different time points through semistructured interviews, and these interviews were the primary data source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Background and Context: Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery‐based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery‐Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field. Design and Participants: A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co‐developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed. Results: This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer–researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers. Conclusion: Discovery‐based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery‐based research process through a coordinated, organisation‐wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings. Patient or Public Contribution: Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co‐developed and pilot‐tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co‐authors by editing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objectives: Children with intellectual disability experience patient safety issues resulting in poor care experiences and health outcomes. This study sought to identify patient safety issues that pertain to children aged 0–16 years with intellectual disability admitted to two tertiary state‐wide children's hospitals and a children's palliative care centre; to describe and understand these factors to modify the Australian Patient Safety Education Framework to meet the particular needs for children and young people with intellectual disability. Design, Setting and Participants: Parents of children with intellectual disability from two paediatric hospitals and a palliative care unit participated in semi‐structured interviews to elicit their experiences of their child's care in the context of patient safety. Thirteen interviews were conducted with parents from various backgrounds with children with intellectual, developmental and medical diagnoses. Results: Eight themes about safety in hospital care for children and young people with intellectual disability emerged from thematic analyses: Safety is not only being safe but feeling safe; Negative dismissive attitudes compromise safety, quality and care experience; Parental roles as safety advocates involve being heard, included and empowered; Need for purposeful and planned communication and care coordination to build trust and improve care; Systems, processes and environments require adjustments to prevent patient safety events; Inequity in care due to lack of resources and skills, Need for training in disability‐specific safety and quality issues and Core staff attributes: Kindness, Patience, Flexibility and Responsiveness. Parents highlighted the dilemma of being dismissed when raising concerns with staff and being required to provide care with little support. Parents also reported a lack of comprehensive care coordination services. They noted limitations within the healthcare system in accommodating reasonable adjustments for a family and child‐centred context. Conclusions: The development of an adapted Patient Safety Education Framework for children with intellectual disability should consider ways for staff to transform attitudes and reduce bias which leads to adaptations for safer and better care. In addition, issues that apply to quality and safety for these children can be generalised to all children in the hospital. Patient and Public Contribution: Parent advocates in the project advisory team were shown the questions to determine their appropriateness for the interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment of cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants, especially participants representing the diversity of the US population, is necessary to create successful medications and a continual challenge. These challenges are amplified in Phase I cancer trials that focus on evaluating the safety of new treatments and are the gateway to treatment development. In preparation for recruitment to a Phase I recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) trial, we assessed perceived barriers to participation or referral and suggestions for recruitment among people with HNC and community physicians (oncologist, otolaryngologist or surgeon). Methods: Between December 2020 and February 2022, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment via semistructured interviews with a race and ethnicity‐stratified sample of people with HNC (n = 30: 12 non‐Hispanic White, 9 non‐Hispanic African American, 8 Hispanic and 1 non‐Hispanic Pacific Islander) and community physicians (n = 16) within the University of Florida Health Cancer Center catchment area. Interviews were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach to describe perspectives and identify relevant themes. Results: People with HNC reported thematic barriers included: concerns about side effects, safety and efficacy; lack of knowledge and systemic and environmental obstacles. Physicians identified thematic barriers of limited physician knowledge; clinic and physician barriers and structural barriers. People with HNC and physicians recommended themes included: improved patient education, dissemination of trial information and interpersonal communication between community physicians and CCT staff. Conclusions: The themes identified by people with HNC and community physicians are consistent with research efforts and recommendations on how to increase the participation of people from minoritized populations in CCTs. This community needs assessment provides direction on the selection of strategies to increase CCT participation and referral. Patient or Public Contribution: This study focused on people with HNC and community physicians' lived experience and their interpretations of how they would consider a future Phase I clinical trial. In addition to our qualitative data reflecting community voices, a community member reviewed the draft interview guide before data collection and both people with HNC and physicians aided interpretation of the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Advancements in evaluating the impact of participatory health research (PHR) have been made through comprehensive models like the community‐based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model, which provides a useful framework for exploring how context and partnership processes can influence health research design and interventions. However, challenges in operationalising aspects of the model limit our understanding and evaluation of the PHR process. Trust is frequently identified as an important component of the CBPR model, which supports the development of key partnership outcomes, such as partnership synergy. However, trust continues to be limited to a binary view (as present or absent), which is problematic given its inherently dynamic and temporal nature. Study Aim: The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the evolution of trust in the national public and patient involvement (PPI) network in Ireland. Setting and Participants: Participants from the PPI network (n = 15/21) completed a semistructured interview discussing the evolution of trust by reviewing four social network maps derived from a previous longitudinal study. Analysis: Following Braun and Clarke, we used reflexive thematic analysis, to iteratively develop, analyse and interpret our mediated reflection of the data. Results: Participants described the evolution of trust as a function of three contextual factors: (1) the set‐up and organisation of the network, (2) how people work together and (3) reflection on the process and outcomes. Their descriptions across these themes seemed to vary depending on partnership type with National Partners and Site Leads having more opportunities to demonstrate trust (e.g., via leadership roles or more resources), compared to Local. Thus, visibility and the opportunity to be visible, depending on the set‐up and organisation of the network and how people work together, seemingly play an important role in the evolution of trust over time. Based on these findings, we provide important questions for reflection across themes that could be considered for future PHR partnerships. Discussion: Given that the opportunity and visibility to build and maintain trust over time may not be equally available to all partners, it is important to find ways to invest in and commit to equitable relationships as the key to the success (i.e., longevity) of partnerships. We reflect on/offer important implications for those engaging in PHR partnerships and those who fund such research. Patient or Public Contribution: A Research Advisory Group comprising four research partners (representing academic, service and community organisations) from the PPI Ignite Network provided input and approval for the research objectives of this study as well as previously published work informing this study. Informal consultation occurred with members of this group to discuss findings from this study, assisting with the way findings are presented and described, to be accessible for diverse audiences. Two Research Advisory Group members were involved in the interpretation of the results, and one is a co‐author of this manuscript (Zoe Hughes). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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