“It’s almost like a medal that you wear afterwards”: undergraduate student experiences of work-related learning in the public and third sectors

Article sharing findings from an HEA funded project, that investigated benefits to students' learning gained specifically from work-related learning in the public and third sectors

How to Measure the Intervention Process? An Assessment of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Data Collection in the Process Evaluation of Organizational Interventions

Organizational interventions aiming at improving employee health and wellbeing have proven to be challenging to evaluate. To analyze intervention processes two methodological approaches have widely been used: quantitative (often questionnaire data), or qualitative (often interviews). Both methods are established tools, but their distinct epistemological properties enable them to illuminate different aspects of organizational interventions. In this paper, we use the quantitative and qualitative process data from an organizational intervention conducted in a national postal service, where the Intervention Process Measure questionnaire (N = 285) as well as an extensive interview study (N = 50) were used. We analyze what type of knowledge about intervention processes these two methodologies provide and discuss strengths and weaknesses as well as potentials for mixed methods evaluation methodologies

Improving access to high-quality primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: a mixed method study protocol

Introduction: The UK has an ageing population, especially in rural areas, where deprivation is high among older people. Previous research has identified this group as at high risk of poor access to healthcare. The aim of this study is to generate a theory of how socioeconomically disadvantaged older people from rural areas access primary care, to develop an intervention based on this theory and test it in a feasibility trial. Methods and analysis: On the basis of the MRC Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions, three methods will be used to generate the theory. First, a realist review will elucidate the patient pathway based on existing literature. Second, an analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing will be completed using structural equation modelling. Third, 15 semistructured interviews will be undertaken with patients and four focus groups with health professionals. A triangulation protocol will be used to allow each of these methods to inform and be informed by each other, and to integrate data into one overall realist theory. Based on this theory, an intervention will be developed in discussion with stakeholders to ensure that the intervention is feasible and practical. The intervention will be tested within a feasibility trial, the design of which will depend on the intervention. Lessons from the feasibility trial will be used to refine the intervention and gather the information needed for a definitive trial. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval from the regional ethics committee has been granted for the focus groups with health professionals and interviews with patients. Ethics approval will be sought for the feasibility trial after the intervention has been designed. Findings will be disseminated to the key stakeholders involved in intervention development, to researchers, clinicians and health planners through peer-reviewed journal articles and conference publications, and locally through a dissemination event

Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap : systematic reviews of reviews

Acknowledgements The Evidence to Practice Project (SPCR FR4 project number: 122) is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). KD is part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Research and Care West Midlands and by a Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellowship (KMRF-2014-03-002) from the NIHR. This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Funding This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

‘It’s almost like a medal you wear afterwards’: undergraduate student experiences of work-related learning in the public and third sectors

Article sharing findings from an HEA funded project, that investigated benefits to students' learning gained specifically from work-related learning in the public and third sectors

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Social Media Research: A Review of the Literature

Social media technologies have attracted substantial attention among many types of users including researchers who have published studies for several years. This article presents an overview of trends in qualitative and mixed methods social media research literature published from 2007 through 2013. A collection of 229 qualitative studies were identified through a systematic literature review process. A subset of 55 of these articles report studies involving a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Articles were reviewed, analyzed, and coded through a qualitative content analysis approach. Overall trends are presented with respect to the entire collection of articles followed by an analysis of mixed methods research approaches identified in the subset of 55 studies. The most commonly used research approaches involved collecting data from people through interview, focus group, and survey methodologies. Content analysis was the second most commonly used approach whereby researchers use Facebook posts, Tweets (Twitter posts), YouTube videos, or other social media content as a data source. Many of the studies involving combinations of quantitative and qualitative data followed a design resembling Creswell and Plano Clark’s basic mixed methods typology (e.g., convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential)

Developing and testing accelerated partner therapy for partner notification for people with genital Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosed in primary care: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background Accelerated partner therapy (APT) is a promising partner notification (PN) intervention in specialist sexual health clinic attenders. To address its applicability in primary care, we undertook a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of two APT models in community settings. Methods Three-arm pilot RCT of two adjunct APT interventions: APTHotline (telephone assessment of partner(s) plus standard PN) and APTPharmacy (community pharmacist assessment of partner(s) plus routine PN), versus standard PN alone (patient referral). Index patients were women diagnosed with genital chlamydia in 12 general practices and three community contraception and sexual health (CASH) services in London and south coast of England, randomised between 1 September 2011 and 31 July 2013. Results 199 women described 339 male partners, of whom 313 were reported by the index as contactable. The proportions of contactable partners considered treated within 6 weeks of index diagnosis were APTHotline 39/111 (35%), APTPharmacy 46/100 (46%), standard patient referral 46/102 (45%). Among treated partners, 8/39 (21%) in APTHotline arm were treated via hotline and 14/46 (30%) in APTPharmacy arm were treated via pharmacy. Conclusions The two novel primary care APT models were acceptable, feasible, compliant with regulations and capable of achieving acceptable outcomes within a pilot RCT but intervention uptake was low. Although addition of these interventions to standard PN did not result in a difference between arms, overall PN uptake was higher than previously reported in similar settings, probably as a result of introducing a formal evaluation. Recruitment to an individually randomised trial proved challenging and full evaluation will likely require service-level randomisation

The importance of context in screening in occupational health interventions in organizations: a mixed methods study

In occupational health interventions, there is a debate as to whether standardized or tailored measures should be used to identify which aspects of the psychosocial work environment should be targeted in order to improve employees’ well-being. Using the Job Demands-Resources model, the main aim of the present study is to demonstrate how a mixed methods approach to conducting screening enables the identification of potential context-dependent demands and resources in the workplace, which should to be targeted by the intervention. Specifically, we used a mixed methods exploratory sequential research design. First, we conducted four focus groups (N = 37) in a sample of employees working in grocery stores in Italy. The qualitative results allowed to identify one possible context-specific job demand: the use of a work scheduling IT software, whose implementation resulted in a high rotation between different market’s departments. From the qualitative results, this context-specific demand seemed to be related to workers’ well-being. Thus, in a subsequent questionnaire survey (N = 288), we included this demand together with generic measures of social support and psychological well-being. Results confirmed that this context-specific job demand was related to emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, it was found that social support moderated the relationship between this specific job demand and emotional exhaustion showing among employees whose activities depended on the IT software, employees that perceived higher levels of social support from colleagues experienced lower levels of emotional exhaustion with respect to their colleagues who perceived lower levels of social support. The present study confirms that mixed methods approach is useful in occupational health intervention research and offers a way forward on helping organizations prioritize their intervention activities

Public acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding

Objective To survey public attitudes about incentives for smoking cessation in pregnancy and for breast feeding to inform trial design. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting and participants British general public. Methods Seven promising incentive strategies had been identified from evidence syntheses and qualitative interview data from service users and providers. These were shopping vouchers for: (1) validated smoking cessation in pregnancy and (2) after birth; (3) for a smoke-free home; (4) for proven breast feeding; (5) a free breast pump; (6) payments to health services for reaching smoking cessation in pregnancy targets and (7) breastfeeding targets. Ipsos MORI used area quota sampling and home-administered computer-assisted questionnaires, with randomised question order to assess agreement with different incentives (measured on a five-point scale). Demographic data and target behaviour experience were recorded. Analysis used multivariable ordered logit models. Results Agreement with incentives was mixed (ranging from 34% to 46%) among a representative sample of 1144 British adults. Mean agreement score was highest for a free breast pump, and lowest for incentives for smoking abstinence after birth. More women disagreed with shopping vouchers than men. Those with lower levels of education disagreed more with smoking cessation incentives and a breast pump. Those aged 44 or under agreed more with all incentive strategies compared with those aged 65 and over, particularly provider targets for smoking cessation. Non-white ethnic groups agreed particularly with breastfeeding incentives. Current smokers with previous stop attempts and respondents who had breast fed children agreed with providing vouchers for the respective behaviours. Up to £40/month vouchers for behaviour change were acceptable (>85%). Conclusions Women and the less educated were more likely to disagree, but men and women of childbearing age to agree, with incentives designed for their benefit. Trials evaluating reach, impact on health inequalities and ethnic groups are required prior to implementing incentive interventions