Physical activity, noncommunicable disease, and wellbeing in urban South Africa

If there is one thing that policy makers at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and residents of the South African township of Langa are likely to agree on, it is that ‘just sitting’ is not good for you. The positions from which they approach this conclusion however differ profoundly. This research investigates different conceptualisations of physical activity, health, and wellbeing, and the implications of these differences for policy on the prevention of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in low and middle income countries, taking South Africa as a case study. With four out of five deaths from diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke now occurring in low and middle income countries, prevention, of what have been termed ‘NCDs’, in these countries is rising rapidly up the global public health agenda. Physical activity is one of the four primary risk factors which have been identified as intervention targets, but there is an acknowledged paucity of research which helps us to understand how physical activity, and inactivity, are conceptualised in low and middle income country contexts. As a result the evidence base for design of physical activity policy interventions to address NCDs is also weak. The global discourse recognises the determinants of health as socially embedded, but struggles with what this means for policy on prevention. This study explores the detail of this social embeddedness by way of ethnographic research into wellbeing, health and physical activity carried out in a South African township, and juxtaposes this with conceptualisation of these same themes emerging from a review of academic and policy-oriented literature on the prevention of NCDs in low and middle income countries. The struggles of local research groups to reconcile the demands made on them from these very different worlds are explored, and strategies for addressing the specifics of NCD prevention without abstracting health from the broader context of the person or society are discussed. The research is theoretically informed by work on wellbeing in developing countries.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Patient experiences of telephone outreach to enhance uptake of NHS Health Checks in more deprived communities and minority ethnic groups: A qualitative interview study

Background: The NHS Health Checks preventative programme aims to reduce cardiovascular morbidity across England. To improve equity in uptake, telephone outreach was developed in Bristol, involving community workers telephoning patients amongst communities potentially at higher risk of cardiovascular disease and/or less likely to take up a written invitation, to engage them with NHS Health Checks. Where possible, caller cultural background/main language is matched with that of the patient called. The call includes an invitation to book an NHS Health Check appointment, lifestyle questions from the Health Check, and signposting to lifestyle services. Objective: To explore the experiences of patients who received an outreach call. Design/Setting/Participants: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 24 patients (15 female), from seven primary care practices, who had received an outreach call. Results: The call increased participants’ understanding of NHS Health Checks and overcame anticipated difficulties with making an appointment. Half reported that they would not have booked if only invited by letter. The cultural identity/language skills of the caller were important in facilitating the interaction for some who might otherwise encounter language or cultural barriers. The inclusion of lifestyle questions and signposting prompted a minority to make lifestyle changes. Conclusions: Participants valued easily generalizable aspects of the intervention—a telephone invitation with ability to book during the call—and reported that it prompted acceptance of an NHS Health Check. A caller who shared their main language/cultural background was important for a minority of participants, and improved targeting of this would be beneficial

Real-world ethics in palliative care: Protocol for a systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice

IntroductionEthical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners (SPCPs) about real-world ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and training and adequately support staff. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which SPCPs encounter during clinical practice.Methods and AnalysisWe will conduct a systematic review with narrative synthesis of empirical studies that use inductive methods to describe the ethical challenges reported by SPCPs. We will search multiple databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, WHOLIS, Web of Science and CINAHL) without time, language or geographical restrictions. Keywords will be developed from scoping searches, consultation with information specialists, and reference to key systematic reviews in palliative care and bioethics. Reference lists of included studies will be hand-searched. 10% of retrieved titles and abstracts will be independently dual screened, as will all full text papers. Quality will be dual assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Narrative synthesis following Popay et al (2006) will be used to synthesise findings. The strength of resulting recommendations will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for qualitative evidence (GRADE-CERQual).Ethics and DisseminationAs this review will include only published data, no specific ethical approval is required.We anticipate that the systematic review will be of interest to palliative care practitioners of all backgrounds, and educators in palliative care and medical ethics. Findings will be presented at conferences and published open access in a peer-reviewed journal

Using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) outside acute hospital settings: A qualitative study of staff experiences in the West of England

© 2018 Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Objectives Early warning scores were developed to improve recognition of clinical deterioration in acute hospital settings. In England, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is increasingly being recommended at a national level for use outside such settings. In 2015, the West of England Academic Health Science Network supported the roll-out of NEWS across a range of non-acute-hospital healthcare sectors. Research on the use of NEWS outside acute hospitals is limited. The objective of this study was to explore staff experiences of using NEWS in these new settings. Design Thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with purposefully sampled healthcare staff. Setting West of England healthcare settings where NEWS was being used outside acute hospitals - primary care, ambulance, referral management, community and mental health services. Participants Twenty-five healthcare staff interviewed from primary care (9), ambulance (3), referral management/acute interface (5), community (4) and mental health services (3), and service commissioning (1). Results Participants reported that NEWS could support clinical decision-making around escalation of care, and provide a clear means of communicating clinical acuity between clinicians and across different healthcare organisations. Challenges with implementing NEWS varied - in primary care, clinicians had to select patients for NEWS and adopt different methods of clinical assessment, whereas for paramedics it fitted well with usual clinical practice and was used for all patients. In community services and mental health, modifications were 'needed' to make the tool relevant to some patient populations. Conclusions This study demonstrated that while NEWS can work for staff outside acute hospital settings, the potential for routine clinical practice to accommodate NEWS in such settings varied. A tailored approach to implementation in different settings, incorporating guidance supported by further research on the use of NEWS with specific patient groups in community settings, may be beneficial, and enhance staff confidence in the tool

Evidence based policy making and the 'art' of commissioning - How English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in 'real life' decision-making: An empirical qualitative study

© 2015 Wye et al. Background: Policymakers such as English healthcare commissioners are encouraged to adopt 'evidence-based policy-making', with 'evidence' defined by researchers as academic research. To learn how academic research can influence policy, researchers need to know more about commissioning, commissioners' information seeking behaviour and the role of research in their decisions. Methods: In case studies of four commissioning organisations, we interviewed 52 people including clinical and managerial commissioners, observed 14 commissioning meetings and collected documentation e.g. meeting minutes and reports. Using constant comparison, data were coded, summarised and analysed to facilitate cross case comparison. Results: The 'art of commissioning' entails juggling competing agendas, priorities, power relationships, demands and personal inclinations to build a persuasive, compelling case. Policymakers sought information to identify options, navigate ways through, justify decisions and convince others to approve and/or follow the suggested course. 'Evidence-based policy-making' usually meant pragmatic selection of 'evidence' such as best practice guidance, clinicians' and users' views of services and innovations from elsewhere. Inconclusive or negative research was unhelpful in developing policymaking plans and did not inform disinvestment decisions. Information was exchanged through conversations and stories, which were fast, flexible and suited the rapidly changing world of policymaking. Local data often trumped national or research-based evidence. Local evaluations were more useful than academic research. Discussion: Commissioners are highly pragmatic and will only use information that helps them create a compelling case for action. Therefore, researchers need to start producing more useful information. Conclusions: To influence policymakers' decisions, researchers need to 1) learn more about local policymakers' priorities 2) develop relationships of mutual benefit 3) use verbal instead of writtencommunication 4) work with intermediaries such as public health consultants and 5) co-produce local evaluations

Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research: Reflections on the challenges and ways to enable more equal relationships

Researchers are increasingly encouraged to co-produce research, involving members of the public, service users, policy makers and practitioners in more equal relationships throughout a research project. The sharing of power is often highlighted as a key principle when co-producing research. However, health and social care research, as with many other academic disciplines, is carried out within embedded hierarchies and structural inequalities in universities, public service institutions, and research funding systems—as well as in society more broadly. This poses significant challenges to ambitions for co-production. This article explores the difficulties that are faced when trying to put ideal co-production principles into practice. A reflective account is provided of an interdisciplinary project that aimed to better understand how to reduce power differentials within co-produced research. The project facilitated five workshops, involving researchers from different disciplines, health, social care and community development staff and public contributors, who all had experience in co-production within research. In the workshops, people discussed how they had attempted to enable more equal relationships and shared ideas that supported more effective and equitable co-produced research. Shared interdisciplinary learning helped the project team to iteratively develop a training course, a map of resources and reflective questions to support co-produced research. The gap between co-production principles and practice is challenging. The article examines the constraints that exist when trying to share power, informed by multidisciplinary theories of power. To bring co-production principles into practice, changes are needed within research practices, cultures and structures; in understandings of what knowledge is and how different forms of knowledge are valued. The article outlines challenges and tensions when co-producing research and describes potential ideas and resources that may help to put co-production principles into practice. We highlight that trying to maintain all principles of co-production within the real-world of structural inequalities and uneven distribution of resources is a constant challenge, often remaining for now in the realm of aspiration

Why do patients seek primary medical care in emergency departments? An ethnographic exploration of access to general practice

Objectives: To describe how processes of primary care access influence decisions to seek help at the emergency department (ED).Design: Ethnographic case study combining non-participant observation, informal and formal interviewing.Setting: Six general practitioner (GP) practices located in three commissioning organisations in England.Participants and methods: Reception areas at each practice were observed over the course of a working week (73 hours in total). Practice documents were collected and clinical and non-clinical staff were interviewed (n=19). Patients with recent ED use, or a carer if aged 16 and under, were interviewed (n=29).Results: Past experience of accessing GP care recursively informed patient decisions about where to seek urgent care, and difficulties with access were implicit in patient accounts of ED use. GP practices had complicated, changeable systems for appointments. This made navigating appointment booking difficult for patients and reception staff, and engendered a mistrust of the system. Increasingly, the telephone was the instrument of demand management, but there were unintended consequences for access. Some patient groups, such as those with English as an additional language, were particularly disadvantaged, and the varying patient and staff semantic of words like ‘urgent’ and ‘emergency’ was exacerbated during telephone interactions. Poor integration between in-hours and out-of-hours care and patient perceptions of the quality of care accessible at their GP practice also informed ED use.Conclusions: This study provides important insight into the implicit role of primary care access on the use of ED. Discourses around ‘inappropriate’ patient demand neglect to recognise that decisions about where to seek urgent care are based on experiential knowledge. Simply speeding up access to primary care or increasing its volume is unlikely to alleviate rising ED use. Systems for accessing care need to be transparent, perceptibly fair and appropriate to the needs of diverse patient groups

Система автоматизированного проектирования «Топоматик Robur»

Background: English health-care commissioners from the NHS need information to commission effectively. In the light of new legislation in 2012, new ‘external’ organisations were created such as commissioning support units (CSUs), public health departments moved into local authorities and ‘external’ provider organisations such as commercial and not-for-profit agencies and freelance consultants were encouraged. The aim of this research from 2011 to 2014 was to study knowledge exchange between these external providers and health-care commissioners to learn about knowledge acquisition and transformation, the role of external providers and the benefits of contracts between external providers and health-care commissioners.Methods: using a case study design, we collected data from eight cases, where commercial and not-for-profit organisations were contracted. We conducted 92 interviews with external providers (n?=?36), their clients (n?=?47) and others (n?=?9), observed 25 training events and meetings and collected various documentation including meeting minutes, reports and websites. Using constant comparison, data were analysed thematically using a coding framework and summaries of cases.Results: in juggling competing agendas, commissioners pragmatically accessed and used information to build a cohesive, persuasive case to plot a course of action, convince others and justify decisions. Local data often trumped national or research-based information. Conversations and stories were fast, flexible and suited to the continually changing commissioning environment. Academic research evidence was occasionally explicitly sought, but usually came predigested via National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidance, software tools and general practitioner clinical knowledge. Negative research evidence did not trigger discussions of disinvestment opportunities. Every commissioning organisation studied had its own unique blend of three types of commissioning models: clinical commissioning, integrated health and social care and commercial provider. Different types of information were privileged in each model. Commissioners regularly accessed information through five main conduits: (1) interpersonal relationships; (2) people placement (embedded staff); (3) governance (e.g. Department of Health directives); (4) ‘copy, adapt and paste’ (e.g. best practice elsewhere); and (5) product deployment (e.g. software tools). Interpersonal relationships appeared most crucial in influencing commissioning decisions. In transforming knowledge, commissioners undertook repeated, iterative processes of contextualisation using a local lens and engagement to refine the knowledge and ensure that the ‘right people’ were on board. Knowledge became transformed, reshaped and repackaged in the act of acquisition and through these processes as commissioners manoeuvred knowledge through the system. External providers were contracted for their skills and expertise in project management, forecast modelling, event management, pathway development and software tool development. Trust and usability influenced clients’ views on the usefulness of external providers, for example the motivations of Public Health and CSUs were more trusted, but the usefulness of their output was variable. Among the commercial and not-for-profit agencies in this study, one was not very successful, as the NHS clients thought that the external provider added little of extra value. With another, the benefits were largely still notional and with a third views were largely positive, with some concerns about expense. Analysts often benefited more than those making commissioning decisions.Conclusions: external providers who maximised their use of the different conduits and produced something of value beyond what was locally available appeared more successful. The long-standing schism between analysts and commissioners blunted the impact of some contracts on commissioners’ decision-making. To capitalise on the expertise of external providers, wherever possible, contracts should include explicit skills development and knowledge transfer component

Management of chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections diagnosed in primary care using a centralised nurse-led telephone-based service: mixed methods evaluation

Background: Up to 18% of genital Chlamydia infections and 9% of Gonorrhoea infections in England are diagnosed in Primary Care. Evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of these cases are not managed appropriately in line with national guidelines. With the increase in sexually transmitted infections and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, their timely and appropriate treatment is a priority. We investigated feasibility and acceptability of extending the National Chlamydia Screening Programme’s centralised, nurse-led, telephone management (NLTM) as an option for management of all cases of chlamydia and gonorrhoea diagnosed in Primary Care. Methods: Randomised feasibility trial in 11 practices in Bristol with nested qualitative study. In intervention practices patients and health care providers (HCPs) had the option of choosing NLTM or usual care for all patients tested for Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea. In control practices patients received usual care. Results: One thousand one hundred fifty-four Chlamydia/gonorrhoea tests took place during the 6-month study, with a chlamydia positivity rate of 2.6% and gonorrhoea positivity rate of 0.8%. The NLTM managed 335 patients. Interviews were conducted with sixteen HCPs (11 GPs, 5 nurses) and 12 patients (8 female). HCPs were positive about the NLTM, welcomed the partner notification service, though requested more timely feedback on the management of their patients. Explaining the NLTM to patients didn’t negatively impact on consultations. Patients found the NLTM acceptable, more convenient and provided greater anonymity than usual care. Patients appreciated getting a text message regarding a negative result and valued talking to a sexual health specialist about positive results. Conclusion: Extension of this established NLTM intervention to a greater proportion of patients was both feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCP, could provide a better service for patients, whilst decreasing primacy care workload. The study provides evidence to support the wider implementation of this NLTM approach to managing chlamydia and gonorrhoea diagnosed in primary care

Uncovering the processes of knowledge transformation: the example of local evidence-informed policy-making in United Kingdom healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare policy-makers are expected to develop 'evidence-based' policies. Yet, studies have consistently shown that, like clinical practitioners, they need to combine many varied kinds of evidence and information derived from divergent sources. Working in the complex environment of healthcare decision-making, they have to rely on forms of (practical, contextual) knowledge quite different from that produced by researchers. It is therefore important to understand how and why they transform research-based evidence into the knowledge they ultimately use. METHODS: We purposively selected four healthcare-commissioning organisations working with external agencies that provided research-based evidence to assist with commissioning; we interviewed a total of 52 people involved in that work. This entailed 92 interviews in total, each lasting 20-60 minutes, including 47 with policy-making commissioners, 36 with staff of external agencies, and 9 with freelance specialists, lay representatives and local-authority professionals. We observed 25 meetings (14 within the commissioning organisations) and reviewed relevant documents. We analysed the data thematically using a constant comparison method with a coding framework and developed structured summaries consisting of 20-50 pages for each case-study site. We iteratively discussed and refined emerging findings, including cross-case analyses, in regular research team meetings with facilitated analysis. Further details of the study and other results have been described elsewhere. RESULTS: The commissioners' role was to assess the available care provision options, develop justifiable arguments for the preferred alternatives, and navigate them through a tortuous decision-making system with often-conflicting internal and external opinion. In a multi-transactional environment characterised by interactive, pressurised, under-determined decisions, this required repeated, contested sensemaking through negotiation of many sources of evidence. Commissioners therefore had to subject research-based knowledge to multiple 'knowledge behaviours'/manipulations as they repeatedly re-interpreted and recrafted the available evidence while carrying out their many roles. Two key 'incorporative processes' underpinned these activities, namely contextualisation of evidence and engagement of stakeholders. We describe five Active Channels of Knowledge Transformation - Interpersonal Relationships, People Placement, Product Deployment, Copy, Adapt and Paste, and Governance and Procedure - that provided the organisational spaces and the mechanisms for commissioners to constantly reshape research-based knowledge while incorporating it into the eventual policies that configured local health services. CONCLUSIONS: Our new insights into the ways in which policy-makers and practitioners inevitably transform research-based knowledge, rather than simply translate it, could foster more realistic and productive expectations for the conduct and evaluation of research-informed healthcare provision