Search

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

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

Introduction: Remote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID‐19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID‐19. Methods: A rapid mixed‐methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross‐sectional survey and semi‐structured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their carers (n = 3). 'Care' relied on support from staff members and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement (e.g., hesitancy to self‐escalate care). Engagement was influenced by patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease of use of informational and material resources (e.g., equipment) and service factors. Conclusion: Remote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self‐manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet, many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. Patient or Public Contribution: The study team met with service users and public members of the evaluation teams throughout the project in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools and data interpretation and were conducted to also discuss study dissemination. Public patient involvement (PPI) members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. Some members of the public also piloted the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript, and the manuscript was amended accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The global prevalence of diabetes in 2019 in adults was estimated to be 9.3%. This study developed in Ecuador, for the first time, instruments to assess patient‐reported outcomes and experiences. Methods: The Experiences of the Person with Diabetes (EPD) Questionnaire is a diabetes‐specific instrument. A mixed‐methods study was conducted. First, a qualitative item development phase that included four focus groups and six semi‐structured interviews with patients was conducted in different rural and urban areas of Ecuador to obtain information on culture, beliefs, demographics, diet and social perspectives. A second quantitative phase for psychometric validation was carried out in primary care settings of rural and urban areas of Ecuador. Results: Forty‐two and four hundred and eighty‐nine participants were included in each phase, respectively. The item development phase resulted in a questionnaire of 44 items (23 for perceived outcomes and 21 for experiences). In the validation study, most participants were women (58%) and from urban areas (57%). Exploratory factor analysis revealed three dimensions for each instrument. Outcomes instrument dimensions were symptoms and burnout, worries and fears and social limitations. Experiences instrument dimensions were information, patient‐centred care and care delivery. Cronbach's α values of the total score and dimensions were high, ranging between.81 and.93 in both instruments. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit of the data. Conclusion: The EPD Questionnaire is probably the first instrument developed to assess patient‐reported experiences and perceived outcomes in a middle‐income country that included patients to capture all dimensions relevant for the intended population. Its psychometric properties are robust and could provide valuable information for clinicians and policymakers in the region. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of these instruments has taken into consideration patients and the public since their conception. A qualitative approach gathered relevant information related to the cultural, social and economic burden of different populations in Ecuador. Before validation, a pilot test was carried out with users of the National Health Services to obtain their perspectives and insights of the developed instrument. Finally, during the data analysis, we have given special consideration to social variables such as rural and urban populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]