Search

Increasing frailty or a medical crisis threatens older people's autonomy. Further threats may arise from adult children if such changes or events are perceived as permitting or signalling a need to assume greater control over their parent's life. In the context of reablement—a time‐limited intervention seeking to help older people regain their confidence and ability to live as independently as possible—this is observed in cases where adult children resist, or seek to sabotage, reablement. This runs counter to the notion of family being a valuable resource and partner to reablement services in achieving the desired outcomes. Notions of autonomy and legitimate authority, which often co‐occur in care relationships, provide a useful lens to understand this phenomenon. The aims of this study were to explore reablement staff's accounts of the ways adult children seek to assume control over their parents' reablement, and how they manage such situations. We undertook a secondary analysis of a qualitative dataset comprising transcripts of 11 focus groups with staff (n = 78) in five reablement services in England and Wales conducted for the purposes of a study investigating the factors affecting older people's engagement with reablement. Staff's accounts included descriptions of the different ways adult children can seek to exert control over the reablement process. Staff believed that, when aware this was happening, older people ceded control to their child(ren) because preserving the relationship with their child(ren) was a greater priority than maximising their independence. Staff's descriptions of the different strategies they used to protect family relationships whilst supporting the older person's autonomy shed light on the skills reablement staff require. Findings support person‐centred approaches to reablement which understand and respond to the wider family context. They also point to possible limitations or gaps in workforce training and supervision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is an increasing priority in health‐related research and education. Attracting and supporting people from different demographic groups to give up their time and get involved is important to help ensure that all parts of society are empowered, represented and their voices heard in decisions that may affect their health and quality of life. Objectives: (1) To determine if a demographically diverse cross‐section of society would be interested in contributing to healthcare research and education. (2) To understand factors that can act as barriers and enablers to effective and diverse PPI. Method: PPI survey data was collected via engagement events, with the aim of scoping interest in PPI from a diverse public. A Focus Group study involving members of the public, academic and professional service staff, was then conducted to gain a deeper understanding around the barriers and enablers of diversity within PPI. Results: 71% of a diverse rich public indicated they would like to get involved in healthcare research and teaching. 76% of survey respondents indicated that they would be happy to share a personal or family experience of healthcare. The two biggest factors impacting on our cohort getting involved are' availability of time' and 'being aware of PPI opportunities'. These factors may disproportionally affect specific groups. Shared and individual PPI enablers and barriers were identified across all stakeholder groups within the Focus Group Study, as well as generic and novel factors that would impact on an institutions' ability to improve PPI diversity. Conclusion: These data points confirm a demographically diverse public's appetite to get involved in academic health research and teaching. This needs to be recognised and harnessed to ensure public contributor networks are representative of society. Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken in relation to all PPI opportunities. There is a need to recognise the investment of time and resources required to build mutually beneficial relationships with diverse communities as well as the development of inclusive 'fit for purpose' PPI infrastructures to support the uptake of diverse PPI contributors. Public Contribution: This study involved members of the public responding to a short survey. Public contributors made up one of the three focus groups. The School of Medicine lead public contributor was also involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]