Integrated approach to cardiovascular disease in people experiencing homelessness: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), beyond impact of socioeconomic status. CVD is preventable and treatable, though barriers to interventions exist for people experiencing homelessness. Those with lived experience of homelessness and health professionals with relevant expertise can help to understand and address these barriers. OBJECTIVES: To understand, and make recommendations to improve, CVD care in homeless populations through lived and professional expertise. METHOD: Four focus groups were conducted in March-July 2019. Three groups included people currently or previously experiencing homelessness, each attended by a cardiologist (AB), a health services researcher (PB) and an 'expert by experience' (SB) who coordinated participants. One group included multidisciplinary health and social care professionals in and around London to explore solutions. PARTICIPANTS: The three groups included 16 men and 9 women, aged 20-60 years, of whom 24 were homeless and currently living in hostels, and 1 rough sleeper. At least 14 discussed sleeping rough at some point. RESULTS: Participants were aware of CVD risks and relevance of healthy habits but identified barriers to prevention and health access, starting with disorientation affecting planning and self-care, lack of facilities for food, hygiene and exercise, and experiences of discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: CVD care for those experiencing homelessness should account for fundamental problems of the environment, be codesigned with service users and cover key principles: flexibility, public and staff education, integration of support and advocacy for health service rights

Digital health, cardiometabolic disease and ethnicity: an analysis of United Kingdom government policies from 2010 to 2022

Recent health policies in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally have focussed on digitisation of healthcare. We examined UK policies for evidence of government action addressing health inequalities and digital health, using cardiometabolic disease as an exemplar. Using a systematic search methodology, we identified 87 relevant policy documents published between 2010 and 2022. We found increasing emphasis on digital health, including for prevention, diagnosis and management of cardiometabolic disease. Several policies also focused on tackling health inequalities and improving digital access. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified inequalities. No policies addressed ethnic inequalities in digital health for cardiometabolic disease, despite high prevalence in minority ethnic communities. Our findings suggest that creating opportunities for digital inclusion and reduce longer-term health inequalities, will require future policies to focus on: the heterogeneity of ethnic groups; cross-sectoral disadvantages which contribute to disease burden and digital accessibility; and disease-specific interventions which lend themselves to culturally tailored solutions

Digital health, cardiometabolic disease and ethnicity : an analysis of United Kingdom government policies from 2010 to 2022

Recent health policies in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally have focussed on digitisation of healthcare. We examined UK policies for evidence of government action addressing health inequalities and digital health, using cardiometabolic disease as an exemplar. Using a systematic search methodology, we identified 87 relevant policy documents published between 2010 and 2022. We found increasing emphasis on digital health, including for prevention, diagnosis and management of cardiometabolic disease. Several policies also focused on tackling health inequalities and improving digital access. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified inequalities. No policies addressed ethnic inequalities in digital health for cardiometabolic disease, despite high prevalence in minority ethnic communities. Our findings suggest that creating opportunities for digital inclusion and reduce longer-term health inequalities, will require future policies to focus on: the heterogeneity of ethnic groups; cross-sectoral disadvantages which contribute to disease burden and digital accessibility; and disease-specific interventions which lend themselves to culturally tailored solutions

Frameworks for implementation, uptake and use of digital health interventions in ethnic minority populations: a scoping review using cardiometabolic disease as a case study

Background: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. Objective: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. Methods: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. Results: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. Conclusions: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies

Frameworks for implementation, uptake, and use of cardiometabolic disease–related digital health interventions in ethnic minority populations : scoping review

Background: Digital health interventions have become increasingly common across health care, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health inequalities, particularly with respect to ethnicity, may not be considered in frameworks that address the implementation of digital health interventions. We considered frameworks to include any models, theories, or taxonomies that describe or predict implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions. Objective: We aimed to assess how health inequalities are addressed in frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; health and ethnic inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. Methods: SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched to identify papers on frameworks relevant to the implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions; ethnically or culturally diverse populations and health inequalities; and interventions for cardiometabolic disease. We assessed the extent to which frameworks address health inequalities, specifically ethnic inequalities; explored how they were addressed; and developed recommendations for good practice. Results: Of 58 relevant papers, 22 (38%) included frameworks that referred to health inequalities. Inequalities were conceptualized as society-level, system-level, intervention-level, and individual. Only 5 frameworks considered all levels. Three frameworks considered how digital health interventions might interact with or exacerbate existing health inequalities, and 3 considered the process of health technology implementation, uptake, and use and suggested opportunities to improve equity in digital health. When ethnicity was considered, it was often within the broader concepts of social determinants of health. Only 3 frameworks explicitly addressed ethnicity: one focused on culturally tailoring digital health interventions, and 2 were applied to management of cardiometabolic disease. Conclusions: Existing frameworks evaluate implementation, uptake, and use of digital health interventions, but to consider factors related to ethnicity, it is necessary to look across frameworks. We have developed a visual guide of the key constructs across the 4 potential levels of action for digital health inequalities, which can be used to support future research and inform digital health policies

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol

Introduction As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. Methods and analysis This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID

Long Covid active case finding study protocol: A co-produced community-based pilot within the STIMULATE-ICP study (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways)

Background and aim Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups' experiences of Long Covid, and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area in London, United Kingdom to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care, and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. Methods This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, a study leaflet will be distributed in the local community to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed. Potential participants will be assessed according to the study's inclusion criteria and offered the opportunity to participate if they fit them. Awareness of Long Covid and associated symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered a referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic

Integrated approach to cardiovascular disease in people experiencing homelessness: a qualitative study

Background Homelessness is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), beyond impact of socioeconomic status. CVD is preventable and treatable, though barriers to interventions exist for people experiencing homelessness. Those with lived experience of homelessness and health professionals with relevant expertise can help to understand and address these barriers.Objectives To understand, and make recommendations to improve, CVD care in homeless populations through lived and professional expertise.Method Four focus groups were conducted in March–July 2019. Three groups included people currently or previously experiencing homelessness, each attended by a cardiologist (AB), a health services researcher (PB) and an ‘expert by experience’ (SB) who coordinated participants. One group included multidisciplinary health and social care professionals in and around London to explore solutions.Participants The three groups included 16 men and 9 women, aged 20–60 years, of whom 24 were homeless and currently living in hostels, and 1 rough sleeper. At least 14 discussed sleeping rough at some point.Results Participants were aware of CVD risks and relevance of healthy habits but identified barriers to prevention and health access, starting with disorientation affecting planning and self-care, lack of facilities for food, hygiene and exercise, and experiences of discrimination.Conclusions CVD care for those experiencing homelessness should account for fundamental problems of the environment, be codesigned with service users and cover key principles: flexibility, public and staff education, integration of support and advocacy for health service rights

What is current care for people with Long COVID in England? A qualitative interview study

Objective To investigate current care for people with Long COVID in England. Design In-depth, semistructured interviews with people living with Long COVID and Long COVID healthcare professionals; data analysed using thematic analysis. Setting National Health Service England post-COVID-19 services in six clinics from November 2022 to July 2023. Participants 15 healthcare professionals and 21 people living with Long COVID currently attending or discharged (18 female; 3 male). Results Health professionals and people with lived experience highlighted the multifaceted nature of Long COVID, including its varied symptoms, its impact on people's lives and the complexity involved in managing this condition. These impacts encompass physical, social, mental and environmental dimensions. People with Long COVID reported barriers in accessing primary care, as well as negative general practitioner consultations where they felt unheard or invalidated, though some positive interactions were also noted. Peer support or support systems proved highly valuable and beneficial for individuals, aiding their recovery and well-being. Post-COVID-19 services were viewed as spaces where overlooked voices found validation, offering more than medical expertise. Despite initial challenges, healthcare providers' increasing expertise in diagnosing and treating Long COVID has helped refine care approaches for this condition. Conclusion Long COVID care in England is not uniform across all locations. Effective communication, specialised expertise and comprehensive support systems are crucial. A patient-centred approach considering the unique complexities of Long COVID, including physical, mental health, social and environmental aspects is needed. Sustained access to post-COVID-19 services is imperative, with success dependent on offering continuous rehabilitation beyond rapid recovery, acknowledging the condition's enduring impacts and complexities.</p