Search

Aims and objectives To explore the processes that support shared decision-making when health visitors and parents are creating plans to improve the well-being of babies and children. Background Worldwide, there is a focus on promoting children's well-being to enhance the population health. Within the United Kingdom, health visitors have a key responsibility for working in partnership with parents to support this agenda. Despite evidence that the application of 'shared decision-making' frameworks can increase patient participation, improve patient satisfaction and improve health outcomes, there is limited research linking shared decision-making with health visitor practice. Design A qualitative, descriptive study. Methods The study was undertaken in two phases: in Phase 1, data were collected by audio recording two health visitor-parent decision-making conversations, in the absence of the researcher, where decisions around planning for a baby or child were being made as part of usual care, and then the participants' experiences were sought through individual questionnaires. In Phase 2, semistructured interviews were conducted with nine health visitors and nine parents in relation to their recent experiences of planning care. Results Evidence of supportive processes included having a shared understanding around the issue needing to be addressed; being able to identify interventions that were accessible for the family; engaging in decision-making through deep, meaningful conversations using sensitive and responsive approaches; and establishing positive relationships between health visitors and parents, significant others within the family and other professionals. Conclusion Despite evidence of strong, trusting relationships between parents and health visitors, there were times when shared decision-making was unable to take place due to the absence of supportive processes. Relevance to clinical practice Health visitors are aware that planning interventions with parents can be complex. These findings indicate the value of using a shared decision-making framework to structure planning, as application of a framework identified the processes that support a collaborative approach in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. Background Since 1902 statutory supervision has been a requirement for UK midwives, but this is due to change. Evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses and allied health professions could inform a new model of clinical supervision for midwives. Design A systematic review with a contingent design, comprising a broad map of research relating to clinical supervision and two focussed syntheses answering specific review questions. Data sources Electronic databases were searched from 2005 - September 2015, limited to English-language peer-reviewed publications. Review methods Systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of clinical supervision were included in Synthesis 1. Primary research studies including a description of a clinical supervision intervention were included in Synthesis 2. Quality of reviews were judged using a risk of bias tool and review results summarized in tables. Data describing the key components of clinical supervision interventions were extracted from studies included in Synthesis 2, categorized using a reporting framework and a narrative account provided. Results Ten reviews were included in Synthesis 1; these demonstrated an absence of convincing empirical evidence and lack of agreement over the nature of clinical supervision. Nineteen primary studies were included in Synthesis 2; these highlighted a lack of consistency and large variations between delivered interventions. Conclusion Despite insufficient evidence to directly inform the selection and implementation of a framework, the limited available evidence can inform the design of a new model of clinical supervision for UK-based midwives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims A discussion of the existence, prevalence and characteristics of the nocebo effect in health care. Background There is increasing but inconsistent evidence for nocebo effects (the opposite of placebo). Causal mechanisms are believed to be similar to placebo (negative effects result from suggestions of negative clinical outcomes). Risk screening in health care may produce this unintended effect through labelling some patients as high risk. Given health care's almost universal coverage this potentially affects many people. Design Discussion paper following a scoping review of the existence and frequency of nocebo. Data sources Literature databases (Psyc INFO, MEDLINE, CCTR, CINAHL and EMBASE) searched from inception dates to 2013. Implications for nursing Significant empirical evidence indicates that negative beliefs may impact on health outcomes (incidence estimates range from 3-27%). The nocebo effect, rooted in the complex interplay between physiological functioning and social factors, appears significantly more common among women and where prior negative knowledge or expectations exist. Pre-existing psychological characteristics (anxiety, neuroses, panic disorder or pessimism) exacerbate it. Conclusion While the placebo effect is well documented, there has been no systematic attempt to synthesize primary empirical research on the role of nocebo. It is possible that nocebo outcomes may be preventable through careful consideration of information provision and the prior identification of potentially high risk individuals. This paper summarizes the scale and importance of the nocebo effect, its distribution according to a range of social and clinical variables and its known relation to psychological precursors. It identifies important gaps in the research literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]