Search

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. Methods: We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. Results: We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Conclusion: Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore pregnant women’s preferences for birth setting in England. Design: Labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Online survey. Sample: Pregnant women recruited through social media and an online panel. Methods: We developed a DCE to assess women’s preferences for four hypothetical birth settings based on seven attributes: reputation, continuity of care, distance from home, time to see a doctor, partner able to stay overnight, chance of straightforward birth and safety for baby. We used a mixed logit model, with setting modelled as an alternative-specific constant, and conducted a scenario analysis to evaluate the impact of changes in attribute levels on uptake of birth settings. Main outcome measures: Women’s preferences for birth setting. Results: 257 pregnant women completed the DCE. All birth setting attributes, except ‘time to see doctor’, were significant in women’s choice (p<0.05). There was significant heterogeneity in preferences for some attributes. Changes to levels for ‘safety for the baby’ and ‘partner able to stay overnight’ were associated with larger changes from baseline uptake of birth setting. If the preferences identified were translated into the real-world context up to a third of those who reported planning birth in an obstetric unit might choose a midwifery unit assuming universal access to all settings, and knowledge of the differences between settings. Conclusions: We found that ‘safety for the baby’, ‘chance of a straightforward birth’ and ‘can the woman’s partner stay overnight following birth’ were particularly important in women’s preferences for hypothetical birth setting. If all birth settings were available to women and they were aware of the differences between them, it is likely that more low risk women who currently plan birth in OUs might choose a midwifery unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

England’s national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme advocates stepped care as its organizational delivery of psychological therapies to common mental health problems. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of stepped care as a service delivery model, heterogeneity of definition and differences in model implementation in both research and routine practice, hence outcome comparison in terms of effectiveness of model is difficult. Despite sound evidence of the efficacy of low intensity interventions there appears to be a perpetuation of the notion that severity and complexity should only be treated by a high intensity intervention through the continuation of a stratified care model. Yet no psychotherapy treatment is found to be more superior to another, and not enough is known about what works for whom to aid the matching of treatment decision. In the absence of understanding precise treatment factors optimal for recovery, it may be useful to better understand the impact of a service delivery model, and whether different models achieve different outcomes. This study aims to contribute to the discussion regarding the stepped care definition and delivery, and explores the impact on clinical outcomes where different types of stepped care have been implemented within the same service. An observational cohort study analysed retrospective data (n = 16,723) over a 4 year period, in a single IAPT service, where delivery changed from one type of stepped care model to another. We compared the outcomes of treatment completers with a stratified care model and a progression care model. We also explored the assumption that patients who score severe on psychological measures, and therefore are potentially complex, would achieve better outcomes in a stratified model. Outcomes in each model type were compared, alongside baseline factor variables. A significant association was observed between a recovery outcome and model type, with patients 1.5 times more likely to recover in the progression delivery model. The potential implications are that with a progression stepped care model of service delivery, more patients can be treated with a lower intensity intervention, even with initial severe presentations, ensuring that only those that need high intensity CBT or equivalent are stepped up. This could provide services with an effective clinical model that is efficient and potentially more cost effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]