Search

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]

In January 2021, we assessed the implications of temporary regulations in the United Kingdom allowing pubs and restaurants to operate on a takeaway basis without instigating a change of use. Local authorities (LAs) across the North‐East of England were unaware of any data regarding the take‐up of these regulations, partially due to ongoing capacity issues; participants also raised health concerns around takeaway use increasing significantly. One year on, we repeated the study aiming to understand the impact of these regulations on the policy and practice of key professional groups. Specifically, we wanted to understand if LAs were still struggling with staff capacity to address the regulations, whether professionals still had public health trepidations, and if any unexpected changes had occurred across the local food environment because of the pandemic. We conversed with 16 public health professionals, planners and environmental health officers across seven LAs throughout the North‐East of England via focus groups and interviews. Data collated were analysed via an inductive and semantic, reflexive‐thematic approach. Through analysis of the data, three themes were generated and are discussed throughout: popular online delivery services as a mediator to increased takeaway usage; potential long‐term health implications and challenges; continued uncertainty regarding the temporary regulations. This paper highlights important changes to local food environments, which public health professionals should be aware of, so they are better equipped to tackle health inequalities across urban and sub‐urban areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop and explore the validity of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for adult inpatient diabetes care. Method: 27 in‐depth interviews were conducted to inform the development of the 42‐item PREM which was cognitively tested with 10 people. A refined 38‐item PREM was piloted with 228 respondents completing a paper (n = 198) or online (n = 30) version. The performance of the PREM was evaluated by exploring (i) uptake/number of responses and (ii) survey validity by investigating whether the PREM data were of adequate quality and delivered useful information. Results: The PREM had low drop‐out or missing data rates suggesting it was appropriately constructed. Analysis of item frequencies and variances, and problem score calculations concluded that questions provided sufficient score differentiation. Conclusions: This new PREM allows for experiences of inpatient diabetes care to be measured, understood and reported on to help identify priority areas for improving care quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, it is estimated that one in three adults live with two or more long‐term conditions (multiple long‐term conditions, MLTCs), that require self‐management. People who experience socioeconomic deprivation face significant health inequalities due to a range of interrelated characteristics that lead to a lack of resources and opportunities. Previous research with underserved populations indicate low levels of trust towards primary care providers and potential barriers for developing patient‐healthcare professional relationships. The purpose of this paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to self‐managing MLTCs, amongst people who experience socioeconomic deprivation. Methods: Semistructured one‐to‐one interviews with adults (n = 28) living in London and Sheffield, United Kingdom with MLTCs who are experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Participants were recruited through general practices, community channels and social media. Data were analysed in NVivo using reflexive thematic analysis methods. Findings: Four analytical themes were developed: (1) challenges in accessing healthcare services, financial assistance, and cultural awareness; (2) empowerment and disempowerment through technology, including digital exclusion, and use of technology; (3) impact and causes of exclusion on self‐management, including social isolation, area‐based and economic exclusion, and health‐related stigma and (4) adapting self‐management strategies, including cost‐effective, and culturally/lifestyle appropriate strategies. Conclusions: Future health interventions and services need to be developed with consideration of the combined complexities of managing MLTCs while experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Increased awareness in practitioners and commissioners of the complexities surrounding the lives of people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation, and the need for targeted strategies to promote self‐management of MLTCs are of great importance. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group contributed to all stages of the study, including providing important feedback on study documents (topic guides and recruitment materials), as well as providing critical insights surrounding the interpretation of interview data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In England, primary care networks (PCNs) offer opportunities to improve access to and sustainability of general practice through collaboration between groups of practices to provide care with a broader range of practitioner roles. However, there are concerns that these changes may undermine continuity of care. Our study investigates what the organisational shift to PCNs means for continuity of care. Methods: The paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews with general practitioners and other healthcare professionals (HCPs, n = 33) in 19 practices in five PCNs, and their patients (n = 35). Three patient cohorts within each participating practice were recruited, based on anticipated higher or lower needs for continuity of care: patients over 65 years with polypharmacy, patients with anxiety or depression and 'working age' adults aged between 18 and 45 years. Findings: Patients and clinicians perceived changes to continuity in PCNs in our study. Larger‐scale care provision in PCNs required better care coordination and information‐sharing processes, aimed at improving care for 'vulnerable' patients in target groups. However, new working arrangements and ways of delivering care in PCNs undermine HCPs' ability to maintain continuity through ongoing relationships with patients. Patients experience this in terms of reduced availability of their preferred clinician, inefficiencies in care and unfamiliarity of new staff, roles and processes. Conclusions: New practitioners need to be effectively integrated to support effective team‐based care. However, for patients, especially those not deemed 'vulnerable', this may not be sufficient to counter the loss of relationship with their practice. Therefore, caution is required in relation to designating patients as in need of, or not in need of continuity. Rather, continuity for all patients could be maintained through a dynamic understanding of the need for it as fluctuating and situational and by supporting clinicians to provide follow‐up care. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): A PPI group was recruited and consulted during the study for feedback on the study design, recruitment materials and interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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