Search

Social prescribing link workers are recently introduced roles in English primary care. One of their intended functions is to support patients with conditions influenced by the wider, social determinants of health. Their main purpose is to connect people to community resources to meet their nonmedical needs. However, our research reveals that link workers provide not only connections but also what we have described as “holding” for individuals with complex needs, who lack informal networks of support or who are waiting to access services. We explore the concept of holding, its meaning and significance in this context, and consider its consequences. As part of a realist evaluation, we observed seven link workers in GP practices in England during focussed ethnographies over a 3‐week period. We took field notes and interviewed 61 patients and 93 healthcare and voluntary sector professionals. Nine to twelve months later, we carried out follow‐up interviews with forty‐one patients, seven link workers, and a link worker manager. We identified four functions of holding: supporting patients waiting for services, sustaining patients as they prepare for change, reducing the emotional burden of primary healthcare professionals, and bearing witness to patients’ distress. Holding appears to be a vital but often overlooked aspect of social prescribing. Patients benefit from having a reliable and consistent person to support their emotional needs. However, similar to the impact of holding on other primary care professionals, there are unintended consequences: some link workers exceed their capacity, become overburdened, experience burnout, and leave their job. Recognizing the importance of holding and understanding its role in link workers’ primary care responsibilities are critical. If holding work is accepted as a role for link workers, providing training and support to them should be prioritised to ensure successful implementation and positive outcomes for patients, link workers

OBJECTIVES: Systems approaches aim to change the environments in which people live, through cross-sectoral working, by harnessing the complexity of the problem. This paper sought to identify: (1) the strategies which support the implementation of We Can Move (WCM), (2) the barriers to implementation, (3) key contextual factors that influence implementation and (4) impacts associated with WCM. DESIGN: A multi-methods evaluation of WCM was completed between April 2019 and April 2021. Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) and semi-structured interviewers were used. Framework and content analysis were systematically applied to the dataset. SETTING: WCM-a physical activity orientated systems approach being implemented in Gloucestershire, England. PARTICIPANTS: 31 stakeholder interviews and 25 stakeholders involved in 15 REM workshops. RESULTS: A white-water rafting analogy was developed to present the main findings. The successful implementation of WCM required a facilitative, well-connected and knowledgeable guide (ie, the lead organisation), a crew (ie, wider stakeholders) who's vision and agenda aligned with WCM's purpose, and a flexible delivery approach that could respond to ever-changing nature of the river (ie, local and national circumstances). The context surrounding WCM further strengthened and hampered its implementation. Barriers included evaluative difficulties, a difference in stakeholder and organisational perspectives, misaligned expectations and understandings of WCM, and COVID-19 implications (COVID-19 also presented as a facilitative factor). WCM was said to strengthen cohesion and collaboration between partners, benefit other agendas and policies (eg, mental health, town planning, inequality), and improve physical activity opportunities and environments. CONCLUSIONS: This paper is one of the first to evaluate a systems approach to increasing physical activity. We highlight key strategies and contextual factors that influenced the implementation of WCM and demo

Background Systems approaches are currently being advocated and implemented to address complex challenges in Public Health. These approaches work by bringing multi-sectoral stakeholders together to develop a collective understanding of the system, and then to identify places where they can leverage change across the system. Systems approaches are unpredictable, where cause-and-effect cannot always be disentangled, and unintended consequences – positive and negative – frequently arise. Evaluating such approaches is difficult and new methods are warranted. Methods Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a qualitative method which can capture the wider impacts, and adaptive nature, of a systems approach. Using a case study example from the evaluation of a physical activity-orientated systems approach in Gloucestershire, we: a) introduce the adapted REM method; b) describe how REM was applied in the example; c) explain how REM outputs were analysed; d) provide examples of how REM outputs were used; and e) describe the strengths, limitations, and future uses of REM based on our reflections. Results Ripple Effects Mapping is a participatory method that requires the active input of programme stakeholders in data gathering workshops. It produces visual outputs (i.e., maps) of the programme activities and impacts, which are mapped along a timeline to understand the temporal dimension of systems change efforts. The REM outputs from our example were created over several iterations, with data collected every 3–4 months, to build a picture of activities and impacts that have continued or ceased. Workshops took place both in person and online. An inductive content analysis was undertaken to describe and quantify the patterns within the REM outputs. Detailed guidance related to the preparation, delivery, and analysis of REM are included in this paper. Conclusion REM may help to advance our understanding and evaluation of complex systems approaches, especially within the field of Public He

Contains fulltext : 218585.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Despite many countries having physical activity guidelines, there have been few concerted efforts to mobilize this information to the public. The aim of this study was to understand the preferences of under-served community groups about how the benefits of physical activity, and associated guidelines, can be better communicated to the public. Participatory workshops, co-developed between researchers, a local charity, and a community artist, were used to gather data from four groups in Bristol, UK: young people (n = 17); adults (n = 11); older adults (n = 5); and Somali women (n = 15). Workshop content was structured around the study aims. The community artist and/or the local charity delivered the workshops, with researchers gathering data via observation, photos, and audio-recordings, which were analysed using the framework method. All four groups noted that the benefits of physical activity should be included within any communications efforts, though not restricted to health-related benefits. Language used should be simple and jargon-free; terms such as "sedentary", "vigorous" and "intensity" were deemed inaccessible, however all groups liked the message "some is good, more is better". Views about preferred mechanisms, and messenger, for delivering physical activity messages varied both between, and within, groups. Recommendations for those working in physical activity communications, research, and policy are provided.

Background: The Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial was a non-inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease, and reported results up to 5 years. We now report 10-year all-cause death results. Methods: The SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study is an investigator-driven extension of follow-up of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 85 hospitals across 18 North American and European countries. Patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to the PCI group or CABG group. Patients with a history of PCI or CABG, acute myocardial infarction, or an indication for concomitant cardiac surgery were excluded. The primary endpoint of the SYNTAXES study was 10-year all-cause death, which was assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed according to the presence or absence of left main coronary artery disease and diabetes, and according to coronary complexity defined by core laboratory SYNTAX score tertiles. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03417050. Findings: From March, 2005, to April, 2007, 1800 patients were randomly assigned to the PCI (n=903) or CABG (n=897) group. Vital status information at 10 years was complete for 841 (93%) patients in the PCI group and 848 (95%) patients in the CABG group. At 10 years, 244 (27%) patients had died after PCI and 211 (24%) after CABG (hazard ratio 1·17 [95% CI 0·97–1·41], p=0·092). Among patients with three-vessel disease, 151 (28%) of 546 had died after PCI versus 113 (21%) of 549 after CABG (hazard ratio 1·41 [95% CI 1·10–1·80]), and among patients with left main coronary artery disease, 93 (26%) of 357 had died after PCI versus 98 (28%) of 348 after CABG (0·90 [0·68–