What does engagement mean to participants in longitudinal cohort studies?:A qualitative study

Abstract Background Engagement is important within cohort studies for a number of reasons. It is argued that engaging participants within the studies they are involved in may promote their recruitment and retention within the studies. Participant input can also improve study designs, make them more acceptable for uptake by participants and aid in contextualising research communication to participants. Ultimately it is also argued that engagement needs to provide an avenue for participants to feedback to the cohort study and that this is an ethical imperative. This study sought to explore the participants’ experiences and thoughts of their engagement with their birth cohort study. Methods Participants were recruited from the Children of the 90s (CO90s) study. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 participants. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and uploaded onto Nvivo software. They were then analysed via thematic analysis with a constant comparison technique. Results Participants’ experiences of their engagement with CO90s were broadly based on three aspects: communication they received from CO90s, experiences of ethical conduct from CO90s and receiving rewards from CO90s. The communication received from CO90s, ranged from newsletters explaining study findings and future studies, to more personal forms like annual greeting cards posted to each participant. Ethical conduct from CO90s mainly involved participants understanding that CO90s would keep their information confidential, that it was only involved in ‘good’ ethical research and their expectation that CO90s would always prioritise participant welfare. Some of the gifts participants said they received at CO90s included toys, shopping vouchers, results from clinical tests, and time off from school to attend data collection (Focus) days. Participants also described a temporality in their engagement with CO90s and the subsequent trust they had developed for the cohort study. Conclusion The experiences of engagement described by participants were theorized as being based on reciprocity which was sometimes overt and other times more nuanced. We further provide empirical evidence of participants’ expectation for a reciprocal interaction with their cohort study while highlighting the trust that such an interaction fosters. Our study therefore provides key insights for other cohort studies on what participants value in their interactions with their cohort studies

Developing and testing a clinical care bundle incorporating caffeine citrate to manage apnoea of prematurity in a resource-constrained setting: a mixed methods clinical feasibility study protocol

Background Apnoea of prematurity (AOP) is a common condition among preterm infants. Methylxanthines, such as cafeine and aminophylline/theophylline, can help prevent and treat AOP. Due to its physiological benefts and fewer side efects, cafeine citrate is recommended for the prevention and treatment of AOP. However, cafeine citrate is not available in most resource-constrained settings (RCS) due to its high cost. Challenges in RCS using caffeine citrate to prevent AOP include identifying eligible preterm infants where gestational age is not always known and the capability for continuous monitoring of vital signs to readily identify apnoea. We aim to develop an evidencebased care bundle that includes cafeine citrate to prevent and manage AOP in tertiary healthcare facilities in Kenya. Methods This protocol details a prospective mixed-methods clinical feasibility study on using cafeine citrate to manage apnoea of prematurity in a single facility tertiary-care newborn unit (NBU) in Nairobi, Kenya. This study will include a 4-month formative research phase followed by the development of an AOP clinical-care-bundle prototype over 2 months. In the subsequent 4 months, implementation and improvement of the clinical-care-bundle prototype will be undertaken. The baseline data will provide contextualised insights on care practices within the NBU that will inform the development of a context-sensitive AOP clinical-care-bundle prototype. The clinical care bundle will be tested and refned further during an implementation phase of the quality improvement initiative using a PDSA framework underpinned by quantitative and qualitative clinical audits and stakeholders’ engagement. The quantitative component will include all neonates born at gestation age\u3c34 weeks and any neonate prescribed aminophylline or cafeine citrate admitted to the NBU during the study period. Discussion There is a need to develop evidence-based and context-sensitive clinical practice guidelines to standardise and improve the management of AOP in RCS. Concerns requiring resolution in implementing such guidelines include diagnosis of apnoea, optimal timing, dosing and administration of cafeine citrate, standardisation of monitoring devices and alarm limits, and discharge protocols. We aim to provide a feasible standardised clinical care bundle for managing AOP in low and middle-income setting

Treatment decision-making among men with lower urinary tract symptoms:A qualitative study of men’s experiences with recommendations for patient-centred practice

Aims: To inform and guide patient-centred care for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), by providing in-depth qualitative evidence regarding men’s perspectives on treatment decision-making for LUTS.Methods: Interview study of men recruited from 26 English urology departments. Purposive sampling captured, surgical/non-surgical treatment decisions, and diversity in demographics and symptom burden, in men who had urodynamics and those who did not. After diagnostic assessments, men were interviewed either pre-treatment, or after LUTS surgery. Thematic analysis was conducted. Participants’ descriptions of how LUTS treatment decisions were made were categorised as patient-led, doctor-led, or shared.Results: 41 men participated (25 pre-treatment, 16 post-surgery), ages 52-89. 20/41 described the treatment decision as shared with their consultant, 14 as doctor-led, and 7 as patient-led. There was no obvious association between treatment decision-making style and patients’ satisfaction with either clinicians’ role in their decision or their treatment decision. Incomplete or rushed discussions and misperceptions of LUTS and its treatment were reported, indicating a risk of suboptimal decision-making support by clinicians. As well as clinician opinion, men’s treatment decision-making was influenced by the results of urological assessments, comparing current symptoms with possible side-effects of surgery, and others’ experiences and opinions. Conclusions: Men with LUTS report and prefer different kinds of decision-making support from their clinicians, who must tailor their input to patients’ preferences and needs. Patients’ treatment decision-making involves multiple factors and can be challenging, and areas of inadequate clinician support were identified. Recommendations for patient-centred consultations about LUTS treatment are presented. <br/

Treatment decision-making among men with lower urinary tract symptoms: A qualitative study of men's experiences with recommendations for patient-centred practice

Aims: To inform and guide patient-centred care for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), by providing in-depth qualitative evidence regarding men's perspectives on treatment decision-making for LUTS. Methods: An interview study of men recruited from 26 English urology departments. Purposive sampling captured surgical/nonsurgical treatment decisions, and diversity in demographics and symptom burden, in men who had urodynamics and those who did not. After diagnostic assessments, men were interviewed either pre-treatment or after LUTS surgery. Thematic analysis was conducted. Participants’ descriptions of how LUTS treatment decisions were made were categorised as patient-led, doctor-led, or shared. Results: A total of 41 men participated (25 pre-treatment, 16 post-surgery), ages 52–89. Twenty out of 41 described the treatment decision as shared with their consultant, 14 as doctor-led, and seven as patient-led. There was no obvious association between treatment decision-making style and patients’ satisfaction with either clinicians’ role in their decision or their treatment decision. Incomplete or rushed discussions and misperceptions of LUTS and its treatment were reported, indicating a risk of suboptimal decision-making support by clinicians. As well as clinician opinion, men's treatment decision-making was influenced by the results of urological assessments, comparing current symptoms with possible side-effects of surgery, and others’ experiences and opinions. Conclusions: Men with LUTS report and prefer different kinds of decision-making support from their clinicians, who must tailor their input to patients’ preferences and needs. Patients’ treatment decision-making involves multiple factors and can be challenging, and areas of inadequate clinician support were identified. Recommendations for patient-centred consultations about LUTS treatment are presented

Qualitative documentary analysis of guidance on information provision and consent for the introduction of innovative invasive procedures including surgeries within NHS organisations' policies in England and Wales

OBJECTIVE: To review guidance, included in written local UK National Health Service (NHS) organisation policies, on information provision and consent for the introduction of new invasive procedures- including surgeries, and devices (IPs/Ds). DESIGN: A qualitative documentary analysis of data on patient information provision and consent extracted from policies for the introduction of IP/Ds from NHS organisations in England and Wales. SETTING: NHS trusts in England and health boards in Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2017 and July 2018, 150 acute trusts in England and 7 health boards in Wales were approached for their policies for the introduction of new IP/Ds. In total, 123 policies were received, 11 did not fit the inclusion criteria and a further policy was included from a trust website resulting in 113 policies included for review. RESULTS: From the 113 policies, 22 did not include any statements on informed consent/information provision or lacked guidance on the information to be provided to patients and were hence excluded. Consequently, 91 written local NHS policies were included in the final dataset. Within the guidance obtained, variation existed on disclosure of the procedure’s novelty, potential risks, benefits, uncertainties, alternative treatments and surgeon’s experience. Few policies stated that clinicians should discuss the existing evidence associated with a procedure. Additionally, while the majority of policies referred to patients needing written information, this was often not mandated and few policies specified the information to be included. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a fifth of all the policies lacked guidance on information to be provided to patients. There was variability in the policy documents regarding what patients should be told about innovative procedures. Further research is needed to ascertain the information and level of detail appropriate for patients when considering innovative procedures. A core information set including patients’ and clinicians’ views is required to address variability around information provision/consent for innovative procedures

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals:The Lotus study protocol

INTRODUCTION: The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of ‘case studies’ of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice