Explaining the UK's 'high-risk' approach to type 2 diabetes prevention: findings from a qualitative interview study with policy-makers in England

Objectives When seeking to prevent type 2 diabetes, a balance must be struck between individual approaches (focusing on people’s behaviour ‘choices’) and population approaches (focusing on the environment in which those choices are made) to address the socioeconomic complexity of diabetes development. We sought to explore how this balance is negotiated in the accounts of policy-makers developing and enacting diabetes prevention policy. Methods Twelve semistructured interviews were undertaken with nine UK policy-makers between 2018–2021. We explored their perspectives on disease prevention strategies and what influenced policy decision-making. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using NVIVO. We used Shiffman’s political priority framework to theorise why some diabetes prevention policy approaches gather political support while others do not. Results The distribution of power and funding among relevant actors, and the way they exerted their power determined the dominant approach in diabetes prevention policy. As a result of this distribution, policy-makers framed their accounts of diabetes prevention policies in terms of individual behaviour change, monitoring personal quantitative markers but with limited ability to effect population-level approaches. Such an approach aligns with the current prevailing neoliberal political context, which focuses on individual lifestyle choices to prevent disease rather than on infrastructure measures to improve the environments and contexts within which those choices are made. Conclusion Within new local and national policy structures, there is an opportunity for collaborative working among the National Health Service, local governments and public health teams to balance the focus on disease prevention, addressing upstream drivers of ill health as well as targeting individuals with the highest risk of diabetes

Infrastructure revisited : an ethnographic case study of how health information infrastructure shapes and constrains technological innovation

Background: Star defined infrastructure as something other things “run on”; it consists mainly of “boring things.” Building on her classic 1999 paper, and acknowledging contemporary developments in technologies, services, and systems, we developed a new theorization of health information infrastructure with five defining characteristics: (1) a material scaffolding, backgrounded when working and foregrounded upon breakdown; (2) embedded, relational, and emergent; (3) collectively learned, known, and practiced (through technologically-supported cooperative work and organizational routines); (4) patchworked (incrementally built and fixed) and path-dependent (influenced by technical and socio-cultural legacies); and (5) institutionally supported and sustained (eg, embodying standards negotiated and overseen by regulatory and professional bodies). Objective: Our theoretical objective was, in a health care context, to explore what information infrastructure is and how it shapes, supports, and constrains technological innovation. Our empirical objective was to examine the challenges of implementing and scaling up video consultation services. Methods: In this naturalistic case study, we collected a total of 450 hours of ethnographic observations, over 100 interviews, and about 100 local and national documents over 54 months. Sensitized by the characteristics of infrastructure, we sought examples of infrastructural challenges that had slowed implementation and scale-up. We arranged data thematically to gain familiarity before undertaking an analysis informed by strong structuration, neo-institutional, and social practice theories, together with elements taken from the actor-network theory. Results: We documented scale-up challenges at three different sites in our original case study, all of which relate to “boring things”: the selection of a platform to support video-mediated consultations, the replacement of desktop computers with virtual desktop infrastructure profiles, and problems with call quality. In a fourth subcase, configuration issues with licensed video-conferencing software limited the spread of the innovation to another UK site. In all four subcases, several features of infrastructure were evident, including: (1) intricacy and lack of dependability of the installed base; (2) interdependencies of technologies, processes, and routines, such that a fix for one problem generated problems elsewhere in the system; (3) the inertia of established routines; (4) the constraining (and, occasionally, enabling) effect of legacy systems; and (5) delays and conflicts relating to clinical quality and safety standards. Conclusions: Innovators and change agents who wish to introduce new technologies in health services and systems should: (1) attend to materiality (eg, expect bugs and breakdowns, and prioritize basic dependability over advanced functionality); (2) take a systemic and relational view of technologies (versus as an isolated tool or function); (3) remember that technology-supported work is cooperative and embedded in organizational routines, which are further embedded in other routines; (4) innovate incrementally, taking account of technological and socio-cultural legacies; (5) consider standards but also where these standards come from and what priorities and interests they represent; and (6) seek to create leeway for these standards to be adapted to different local conditions

Optimising strategies to address mental ill-health in doctors and medical students: 'Care under Pressure' realist review and implementation guidance

© 2020 The Author(s). Background: Mental ill-health in health professionals, including doctors, is a global and growing concern. The existing literature on interventions that offer support, advice and/or treatment to sick doctors has not yet been synthesised in a way that considers the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions, and the many dimensions of the problem. We (1) reviewed interventions to tackle doctors' and medical students' mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care - drawing on diverse literature sources and engaging iteratively with diverse stakeholder perspectives - and (2) produced recommendations that support the tailoring, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of contextually sensitive strategies to tackle mental ill-health and its impacts. Methods: Realist literature review consistent with the RAMESES quality and reporting standards. Sources for inclusion were identified through bibliographic database searches supplemented by purposive searches - resulting also from engagement with stakeholders. Data were extracted from included articles and subjected to realist analysis to identify (i) mechanisms causing mental ill-health in doctors and medical students and relevant contexts or circumstances when these mechanisms were likely to be 'triggered' and (ii) 'guiding principles' and features underpinning the interventions and recommendations discussed mostly in policy document, reviews and commentaries. Results: One hundred seventy-nine records were included. Most were from the USA (45%) and were published since 2009 (74%). The analysis showed that doctors were more likely to experience mental ill-health when they felt isolated or unable to do their job and when they feared repercussions of help-seeking. Healthy staff were necessary for excellent patient care. Interventions emphasising relationships and belonging were more likely to promote wellbeing. Interventions creating a people-focussed working culture, balancing positive/negative performance and acknowledging positive/negative aspects of a medical career helped doctors to thrive. The way that interventions were implemented seemed critically important. Doctors and medical students needed to have confidence in an intervention for the intervention to be effective. Conclusions: Successful interventions to tackle doctors' and students' mental ill-health are likely to be multidimensional and multilevel and involve multiple stakeholders. Evaluating and improving existing interventions is likely to be more effective than developing new ones. Our evidence synthesis provides a basis on which to do this. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42017069870. Research project webpage http://sites.exeter.ac.uk/cup

‘Care Under Pressure’: a realist review of interventions to tackle doctors’ mental ill-health and its impacts on the clinical workforce and patient care

Introduction Mental ill-health is prevalent across all groups of health professionals and this is of great concern in many countries. In the UK, the mental health of the National Health Service (NHS) workforce is a major healthcare issue, leading to presenteeism, absenteeism and loss of staff from the workforce. Most interventions targeting doctors aim to increase their 'productivity' and 'resilience', placing responsibility for good mental health with doctors themselves and neglecting the organisational and structural contexts that may have a detrimental effect on doctors' well-being. There is a need for approaches that are sensitive to the contextual complexities of mental ill-health in doctors, and that do not treat doctors as a uniform body, but allow distinctions to account for particular characteristics, such as specialty, career stage and different working environments. Methods and analysis Our project aims to understand how, why and in what contexts support interventions can be designed to minimise the incidence of doctors' mental ill-health. We will conduct a realist review-A form of theory-driven interpretative systematic review-of interventions, drawing on diverse literature sources. The review will iteratively progress through five steps: (1) locate existing theories; (2) search for evidence; (3) select articles; (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. The analysis will summarise how, why and in what circumstances doctors' mental ill-health is likely to develop and what can remediate the situation. Throughout the project, we will also engage iteratively with diverse stakeholders in order to produce actionable theory. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for our review. Our dissemination strategy will be participatory. Tailored outputs will be targeted to: policy makers; NHS employers and healthcare leaders; team leaders; support organisations; doctors experiencing mental ill-health, their families and colleagues

Interventions to minimise doctors’ mental ill-health and its impacts on the workforce and patient care: the Care Under Pressure realist review

BackgroundThe growing incidence of mental ill-health in health professionals, including doctors, is a global concern. Although a large body of literature exists on interventions that offer support, advice and/or treatment to sick doctors, it has not yet been synthesised in a way that takes account of the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions, and the many dimensions (e.g. individual, organisational, sociocultural) of the problem.ObjectivesOur aim was to improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts mental health services and support interventions can be designed to minimise the incidence of doctors’ mental ill-health. The objectives were to review interventions to tackle doctors’ mental ill-health and its impact on the clinical workforce and patient care, drawing on diverse literature sources and engaging iteratively with diverse stakeholder perspectives to produce actionable theory; and recommendations that support the tailoring, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of contextually sensitive strategies to tackle mental ill-health and its impacts.DesignRealist literature review consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and reporting standards.Data sourcesBibliographic database searches were developed and conducted using MEDLINE (1946 to November week 4 2017), MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-indexed Citations (1946 to 6 December 2017) and PsycINFO (1806 to November week 2 2017) (all via Ovid) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (1987 to 6 December 2017) (via ProQuest) on 6 December 2017. Further UK-based studies were identified by forwards and author citation searches, manual backwards citation searching and hand-searching relevant journal websites.Review methodsWe included all studies that focused on mental ill-health; all study designs; all health-care settings; all studies that included medical doctors/medical students; descriptions of interventions or resources that focus on improving mental ill-health and minimising its impacts; all mental health outcome measures, including absenteeism (doctors taking short-/long-term sick leave); presenteeism (doctors working despite being unwell); and workforce retention (doctors leaving the profession temporarily/permanently). Data were extracted from included articles and the data set was subjected to realist analysis to identify context–mechanism–outcome configurations.ResultsA total of 179 out of 3069 records were included. Most were from the USA (45%) and had been published since 2009 (74%). More included articles focused on structural-level interventions (33%) than individual-level interventions (21%), but most articles (46%) considered both levels. Most interventions focused on prevention, rather than treatment/screening, and most studies referred to doctors/physicians in general, rather than to specific specialties or career stages. Nineteen per cent of the included sources provided cost information and none reported a health economic analysis. The 19 context–mechanism–outcome configurations demonstrated that doctors were more likely to experience mental ill-health when they felt isolated or unable to do their job, and when they feared repercussions of help-seeking. Healthy staff were necessary for excellent patient care. Interventions emphasising relationships and belonging were more likely to promote well-being. Interventions creating a people-focused working culture, balancing positive/negative performance and acknowledging positive/negative aspects of a medical career helped doctors to thrive. The way that interventions were implemented seemed critically important. Doctors needed to have confidence in an intervention for the intervention to be effective.LimitationsVariable quality of included literature; limited UK-based studies.Future workUse this evidence synthesis to refine, implement and evaluate interventions

Patient and public views on electronic health records and their uses in the United kingdom: cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The development and implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) remains an international challenge. Better understanding of patient and public attitudes and the factors that influence overall levels of support toward EHRs is needed to inform policy. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and public attitudes toward integrated EHRs used simultaneously for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey administered to patients and members of the public who were recruited from a stratified cluster random sample of 8 outpatient clinics of a major teaching hospital and 8 general practices in London (United Kingdom). RESULTS: 5331 patients and members of the public responded to the survey, with 2857 providing complete data for the analysis presented here. There were moderately high levels of support for integrated EHRs used simultaneously for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research (1785/2857, 62.47%), while 27.93% (798/2857) of participants reported being undecided about whether or not they would support EHR use. There were higher levels of support for specific uses of EHRs. Most participants were in favor of EHRs for personal health care provision (2563/2857, 89.71%), with 66.75% (1907/2857) stating that they would prefer their complete, rather than limited, medical history to be included. Of those "undecided" about integrated EHRs, 87.2% (696/798) were nevertheless in favor of sharing their full (373/798, 46.7%) or limited (323/798, 40.5%) records for health provision purposes. There were similar high levels of support for use of EHRs in health services policy and planning (2274/2857, 79.59%) and research (2325/2857, 81.38%), although 59.75% (1707/2857) and 67.10% (1917/2857) of respondents respectively would prefer their personal identifiers to be removed. Multivariable analysis showed levels of overall support for EHRs decreasing with age. Respondents self-identifying as Black British were more likely to report being undecided or unsupportive of national EHRs. Frequent health services users were more likely to report being supportive than undecided. CONCLUSIONS: Despite previous difficulties with National Health Service (NHS) technology projects, patients and the public generally support the development of integrated EHRs for health care provision, planning and policy, and health research. This support, however, varies between social groups and is not unqualified; relevant safeguards must be in place and patients should be guided in their decision-making process, including increased awareness about the benefits of EHRs for secondary uses

Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges.

Background: The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The ‘complexity turn’ has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research—currently denigrated as poor evidence—is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear. Main body: Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports. Conclusion: Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences

Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes : Empirical application of the NASSS framework

© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: Failures and partial successes are common in technology-supported innovation programmes in health and social care. Complexity theory can help explain why. Phenomena may be simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues) or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). The recently published NASSS framework applies this taxonomy to explain Non-adoption or Abandonment of technology by individuals and difficulties achieving Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability. This paper reports the first empirical application of the NASSS framework. Methods: Six technology-supported programmes were studied using ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across 20 health and care organisations and 10 national-level bodies. They comprised video outpatient consultations, GPS tracking technology for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organising software and integrated case management via data warehousing. Data were collected at three levels: micro (individual technology users), meso (organisational processes and systems) and macro (national policy and wider context). Data analysis and synthesis were guided by socio-technical theories and organised around the seven NASSS domains: (1) the condition or illness, (2) the technology, (3) the value proposition, (4) the adopter system (professional staff, patients and lay carers), (5) the organisation(s), (6) the wider (institutional and societal) system and (7) interaction and mutual adaptation among all these domains over time. Results: The study generated more than 400 h of ethnographic observation, 165 semi-structured interviews and 200 documents. The six case studies raised multiple challenges across all seven domains. Complexity was a common feature of all programmes. In particular, individuals' health and care needs were often complex and hence unpredictable and 'off algorithm'. Programmes in which multiple domains were complicated proved difficult, slow and expensive to implement. Those in which multiple domains were complex did not become mainstreamed (or, if mainstreamed, did not deliver key intended outputs). Conclusion: The NASSS framework helped explain the successes, failures and changing fortunes of this diverse sample of technology-supported programmes. Since failure is often linked to complexity across multiple NASSS domains, further research should systematically address ways to reduce complexity and/or manage programme implementation to take account of it.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Conversations about FGM in primary care : a realist review on how, why, and under what circumstances FGM is discussed in general practice consultations

Objectives Little is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients. Setting Primary care in England. Data sources Realist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients. Primary outcome measure This realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated. Results 124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations. Conclusions There is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities’ health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research. METHODS: Systematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions. RESULTS: We identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production. CONCLUSIONS: Case study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended