A worldwide review of support mechanisms for car clubs

Car clubs have operated on a large scale only since 1987, when the first scheme began in Switzerland, although prior to that there were several smaller scale projects. Schemes then spread to Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. More recently, car clubs have been set up in the UK, Denmark, Italy, and Sweden, and in Canada and the USA. These clubs have developed (and are still developing) in a number of ways. Some schemes are community-level schemes with only one or two vehicles, while others are national organisations with many thousands of members. And some schemes are run by volunteers and are non-profit making, while others are commercial ventures run by international companies. Despite such diverse beginnings, it is clear that the vast majority of schemes face similar problems in becoming established. One major barrier has been the lack of involvement or support from local and national Government. Given the potential benefits of car clubs to deliver environmental and social improvements to communities, this is somewhat surprising. As experience of car clubs spreads, this situation has begun to change and there are signs that Government attitudes across the world are becoming more enthusiastic to the idea of encouraging car clubs. This paper draws on the results of a state-of-the-art review, based on several face to face and telephone interviews, email communications, internet sites and existing literature to identify cases where such a change in attitude has occurred, how various levels of Government have translated this into action, and what lessons could be learnt from each example

sj-pdf-4-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 – Supplemental material for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-4-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis by Laura Barrett, Lorna Fraser, Jane Noyes, Jo Taylor and Julia Hackett in Palliative Medicine</p

sj-pdf-3-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 – Supplemental material for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis by Laura Barrett, Lorna Fraser, Jane Noyes, Jo Taylor and Julia Hackett in Palliative Medicine</p

sj-pdf-1-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 – Supplemental material for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis by Laura Barrett, Lorna Fraser, Jane Noyes, Jo Taylor and Julia Hackett in Palliative Medicine</p

Data collection.

Data collection.</p

sj-pdf-2-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 – Supplemental material for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-pmj-10.1177_02692163221144084 for Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis by Laura Barrett, Lorna Fraser, Jane Noyes, Jo Taylor and Julia Hackett in Palliative Medicine</p

EIS staff demographics.

EIS staff demographics.</p

Additional file 1 of A new scale assessing the stressors and rewards of children’s hospice work

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Items list for Work Rewards Scale – Children’s Hospices scale (WRS-CH). Supplementary Table 2. Items list for WSS-CH: Work Stressors Scale – Children’s Hospices scale (WSS-CH). Supplementary Table 3. Rewording of WSS-PO to WSS-CH. Supplementary Table 4. Rewording of WRS-PO to WRS-CH. Supplementary Table 5. Overall model fit statistics for the model using all scale items (preliminary models). Supplementary Table 6. Final model unstandardised and standardised loadings and standard errors for Work Rewards Scale – Children’s Hospices (WRS-CH). Supplementary Table 7. Final model unstandardised and standardised loadings and standard errors for Work Stressors Scale – Children’s Hospices (WSS-CH)

Additional file 1 of Development and validation of a patient reported experience measure for experimental cancer medicines (PREM-ECM) and their carers (PREM-ECM-Carer)

Supplementary Material

A qualitative investigation of the modifiable determinants of medication adherence in bipolar disorder (BD): Views of patients and their family and friends

Background: Medication nonadherence in bipolar disorder (BD) can lead to adverse outcomes including relapse, hospitalisation and suicidility. Adherence research traditionally excludes mental health populations and their family and friends, contributing to inequity between physical and mental health. We used behavioural science to characterise modifiable adherence determinants in BD from the perspectives of patients and their family and friends. Method: Between April-June 2020, we conducted two focus groups and 26 interviews with adults with BD and their family and friends. We explored modifiable adherence determinants which were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), followed by a thematic analysis and prioritisation of determinants. Results: Sixty-three (including 13 new) adherence determinants, mapped to nine TDF domains, were prioritised. Four themes of adherence determinants emerged: the medication itself; practicalities; how patients perceive themselves, their illness, and treatments; and collaboration between patients, their family and friends, and healthcare professionals. Nine prioritised TDF domains were: ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Intentions’, ‘Emotion’, ‘Social Influences’, ‘Goals’, ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Social/professional role and identity’. Respective examples include side effects, treatment preferences, fear of not being ‘myself’, relationships with healthcare team, medication affecting life goals, forgetfulness, beliefs about negative consequences, not knowing the risk of stopping medication, and involvement in treatment decisions. Conclusion: Targeting antecedents of forgetfulness as well as newly identified determinants linked to ‘Emotion’ and ‘Intentions’, may improve adherence. Mapping adherence determinants to TDF domains provides a framework for designing personalised adherence interventions by selecting appropriate behaviour change techniques.</p