Search

Background: We conducted a pilot study of an intervention to facilitate patients' agenda setting in clinical consultations. The primary aim of the study was to test the feasibility of running the randomized controlled trial. A secondary objective was to assess the extent to which patient and public involvement (PPI) could contribute to the process of qualitative data analysis (QDA). Aims: To describe a novel approach to including patient partners in QDA; to illustrate the kinds of contribution that patient partners made to QDA in this context; and to propose a characterization of a process by which patient involvement can contribute to knowledge production. Methods: Six patient and public representatives were supported to contribute to data analysis via a range of modalities. During a series of QDA workshops, experienced research staff role‐played consultations and interviews, and provided vignettes. Workshop data and PPI diaries were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Results: We characterized a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This PPI group contributed to the rigour and validity of the study findings by challenging their own and the researchers' assumptions, and by testing the emerging hypotheses. By training PPI representatives to undertake qualitative data analysis, we transformed our understanding of doctor–patient consultations. Conclusions: This research required changes to our usual research practices but was in keeping with the objective of establishing meaningful patient involvement for a future definitive trial. This work was informed by concepts of critical humility, and a process of knowledge production enabled via the construction of a knowledge space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Having previously conducted qualitative syntheses of the diabetes literature, we wanted to explore the changes in theoretical approaches, methodological practices, and the construction of substantive knowledge which have recently been presented in the qualitative diabetes literature. The aim of this research was to explore the feasibility of synthesizing existing qualitative syntheses of patient perspectives of diabetes using meta-study methodology. A systematic review of qualitative literature, published between 2000 and 2013, was conducted. Six articles were identified as qualitative syntheses. The meta-study methodology was used to compare the theoretical, methodological, analytic, and synthetic processes across the six studies, exploring the potential for an overarching synthesis. We identified that while research questions have increasingly concentrated on specific aspects of diabetes, the focus on systematic review processes has led to the neglect of qualitative theory and methods. This can inhibit the production of compelling results with meaningful clinical applications. Although unable to produce a synthesis of syntheses, we recommend that researchers who conduct qualitative syntheses pay equal attention to qualitative traditions and systematic review processes, to produce research products that are both credible and applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A common methodological limitation of research that guides surgical procedure selection for children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgeries is inconsistent outcome selection. Improving outcome consistency can be achieved through the development of a core outcome set (COS). The aim of this study is to identify which outcomes are considered important for children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgeries by allied health professionals (AHPs) and explore why they select these outcomes, to inform a COS development project. Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant AHPs. Participants were selected using maximum variation purposive sampling; selection was based on profession and inpatient/outpatient role. The data set was analysed using an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis. Four physiotherapists, three orthotists, three prosthetists, and two occupational therapists were interviewed. Most identified outcomes of importance related to "activities and participation". From the data, we conceptualised that AHPs with effective multidisciplinary communication focused on child-centred outcomes, while clinicians with limited multidisciplinary teamwork focused on role-based outcomes. There is concurrence between outcomes identified as important in this study, and other qualitative studies in similar populations. These important outcomes were seldom measured in previous studies or in routine clinical practice. Allied health professionals (AHPs) prioritise activity and participation outcomes after children's elective lower limb orthopaedic surgery. It is important to the rehabilitation of children after elective lower limb orthopaedic surgery that all involved AHPs collaborate with the wider multidisciplinary team. Multidisciplinary team communication encourages collaborative outcome identification, and discourages role defined outcome focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives Understanding how older people experience independence has implications for person-centered care. Existing understanding of older people's experience of independence, generated through methods that provide a "snapshot" view of a person's independence at a given time point, provides little insight into the process of maintaining independence through time. The aim of this study was to explore older participants' perceptions to understand the processes and resources that were most important for maintaining independence. Research Design and Methods Two semistructured interviews were conducted longitudinally to explore the perspectives of 12 community-dwelling, older people, aged 76–85 years. A social constructivist approach, using dramaturgical and descriptive codes, facilitated the interpretation of the data. Sixteen analytical questions guided the exploration of participants' perceptions of independence through time. Results Older people suggested that objective representations underestimated, and omitted, important aspects of their independence through time. Some participants perceived "snapshot" judgments of their independence as insensitive to their individual values and context. Change over time required some participants to adapt their methods for maintaining independence. The stability of participants' sense of independence was value dependent and informed by the purpose a participant ascribed to maintaining independence. Discussion and Implications This study augments the understanding of independence as a complex and multifaceted construct. The findings challenge the congruence of common interpretations of independence with older people's views, showing areas of commonality, and discrepancy. Exploration of independence in terms of form and function provides an important understanding of how function takes precedence to form in determining the maintenance of independence through time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To investigate the components of the Amalgamation of Marginal Gains (AMG) performance system to identify a set of principles that can be built into an innovative fundamental nursing care protocol. Background: Nursing is urged to refocus on its fundamental care activities, but little evidence exists to guide practising nurses. Fundamental care is a combination of many small behaviours aimed at meeting a person's care needs. AMG is a successful system of performance management that focusses on small (or marginal) gains, and might provide a new delivery framework for fundamental nursing care. Design: Qualitative interview study. Methods: We undertook in‐depth interviews with healthcare and sports professionals experienced in AMG. We analysed data using open coding in a framework analysis, and then interrogated the data using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). We triangulated findings with AMG literature to develop an intervention logic model. Results: We interviewed 20 AMG practitioners. AMG processes were as follows: focusing on many details to optimise performance, identification of marginal gains using different sources, understanding current versus optimum performance, monitoring at micro and macro level and strong leadership. Elements of normalisation were as follows: whole team belief in AMG to improve performance, a collective desire for excellence using evidence‐based actions, whole team engagement to identify choose and implement changes, and individual and group responsibility for monitoring performance. Conclusions: We have elicited the processes described by AMG innovators in health care and sport and have mapped the normalisation potential and work required to embed such a system into nursing practice. Relevance to clinical practice: The development of our logic model based on AMG and NPT may provide a practical framework for improving fundamental nursing care and is ripe for further development and testing in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Morita Therapy, a psychological therapy for common mental health problems, is in sharp contrast to established western psychotherapeutic approaches in teaching that undesired symptoms are natural features of human emotion rather than something to control or eliminate. The approach is widely practiced in Japan, but untested and little known in the UK. A clinical trial of Morita Therapy is required to establish the effectiveness of Morita Therapy for a UK population. However, a number of methodological, procedural and clinical uncertainties associated with such a trial first require addressing.Methods/design: The Morita Trial is a mixed methods study addressing the uncertainties associated with an evaluation of Morita Therapy compared with treatment as usual for depression and anxiety. We will undertake a pilot randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Sixty participants with major depressive disorder, with or without anxiety disorders, will be recruited predominantly from General Practice record searches and randomised to receive Morita Therapy plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Morita Therapy will be delivered by accredited psychological therapists. We will collect quantitative data on depressive symptoms, general anxiety, attitudes and quality of life at baseline and four month follow-up to inform future sample size calculations; and rates of recruitment, retention and treatment adherence to assess feasibility. We will undertake qualitative interviews in parallel with the trial, to explore people's views of Morita Therapy. We will conduct separate and integrated analyses on the quantitative and qualitative data.Discussion: The outcomes of this study will prepare the ground for the design and conduct of a fully-powered evaluation of Morita Therapy plus treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone, or inform a conclusion that such a trial is not feasible and/or appropriate. We will obtain a more comprehensive understanding of these issues than would be possible from either a quantitative or qualitative approach alone.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17544090 registered on 23 July 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To determine the effects of nursing interventions for people's nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. Background: Patient experience of health care is sensitive to nursing quality. A refocus on fundamental nursing care is undermined by lack of evidence of effectiveness for interventions in core areas such as elimination, nutrition, mobility and hygiene. Design: Systematic review. Methods: We searched for and included experimental studies on interventions by professionally qualified and unregistered nurses that addressed participants' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We extracted data on scope, quality and results of studies followed by descriptive narrative synthesis of included study outcomes using a novel form of harvest plots. Results: We included 149 studies, 35 nutrition, 56 elimination, 16 mobility, 39 hygiene and three addressing two or more areas simultaneously (67 randomised controlled trials, 32 non‐randomised controlled trials and 50 uncontrolled trials). Studies into interventions on participant self‐management of nutrition (n = 25), oral health (n = 26), catheter care (n = 23) and self‐management of elimination (n = 21) were the most prevalent. Most studies focussed their outcomes on observational or physiological measures, with very few collecting patient‐reported outcomes, such as quality of life, experience or self‐reported symptoms. All but 13 studies were of low quality and at significant risk of bias. The majority of studies did not define primary outcomes, included multiple measures of identical concepts, used inappropriate analyses and did not conform to standard reporting quality criteria. Conclusions: The current evidence for fundamental nursing care interventions is sparse, of poor quality and unfit to provide evidence‐based guidance to practising nurses. Relevance to clinical practice: Researchers in nursing internationally should now undertake a programme of work to produce evidence for clinical practice in the fundamentals of care that is reliable, replicable and robust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]