Measuring the effects of online health information: Scale validation for the e-Health Impact Questionnaire

AbstractObjectiveHealth-related websites have developed to be much more than information sites: they are used to exchange experiences and find support as well as information and advice. This paper documents the development of a tool to compare the potential consequences and experiences a person may encounter when using health-related websites.MethodsQuestionnaire items were developed following a review of relevant literature and qualitative secondary analysis of interviews relating to experiences of health. Item reduction steps were performed on pilot survey data (n=167). Tests of validity and reliability were subsequently performed (n=170) to determine the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.ResultsTwo independent item pools entered psychometric testing: (1) Items relating to general views of using the internet in relation to health and, (2) Items relating to the consequences of using a specific health-related website. Identified sub-scales were found to have high construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability.ConclusionAnalyses confirmed good psychometric properties in the eHIQ-Part 1 (11 items) and the eHIQ-Part 2 (26 items).Practice implicationsThis tool will facilitate the measurement of the potential consequences of using websites containing different types of material (scientific facts and figures, blogs, experiences, images) across a range of health conditions

A novel experience-based internet intervention for smoking cessation : feasibility randomised controlled trial

The iPEx programme presents independent research funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG-0608-10147). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, representing iPEx, and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Managing recurrent vulvovaginal thrush from patient and healthcare professional perspectives: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

Objective: This systematic review aims to identify what is known about patient and healthcare professional experiences of managing recurrent vulvovaginal thrush by synthesising published findings. Methods: Five databases were searched for studies on patient and healthcare professional experiences managing recurrent thrush. Two reviewers independently screened and quality assessed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Findings from eligible studies were thematically synthesised. Results: 720 papers were identified, and 29 were included. Four descriptive themes were developed to depict the repeated management of recurrent thrush. These themes were: (re)experiencing impacts, (re)identifying recurrent thrush, (re)considering consultations, and (re)trying treatments. An analytic high-order frame of ‘interwoven and reoccurring uncertainties’ was used to understand these themes. Conclusions: Patients and healthcare providers face uncertainties when managing recurrent thrush. The inconsistencies raised across papers suggests an unaddressed gap in knowledge about patient experiences and their informational and support needs; this includes insights about this condition’s diagnosis, management, treatment, impacts, and meaning. Practice implications: This review has implications for patient education, health promotion, and communication between patients and providers. Our interpretations suggest the need for more research and resources to help support patients and clinicians in managing this condition to promote more understanding, communication, and collaborative care

Proliferation of private online healthcare companies:Should the NHS try to keep up?

With an app for just about everything, why not one for contacting your doctor? In the United Kingdom, private companies offering primary healthcare are proliferating, with Dr Morton, a website offering email or telephone consultations, and Dr Now, a smartphone app offering video consultations. Companies in the United States are offering an Uber-type experience, where instead of a car, a doctor appears at your door. These companies operate in a climate where patients want convenience, flexibility, and speed of access, features which overstretched general practitioners in the UK are struggling to provide. Meanwhile, new companies are appearing regularly, with the UK digital health market currently worth £2bn (€2.6bn; $2.8bn) and expected to grow to £2.9bn by 2018.2 What are the implications for the NHS

How should we do racially just health research?:Learning from a qualitative study on COVID-19 pandemic experiences

Racialised social inequalities were exposed and exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The methods health researchers employ in designing and conducting research can replicate the same inequalities, with important implications for the creation of new knowledge. In this paper, we retrospectively and critically analyse the thinking and methods we employed during two qualitative studies about the diverse experiences of people and families during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Set within a wider literature on engaging with race and ethnicity in health research, we present an analysis based on reflexive accounts and testimonies from researchers, and close-up examinations of different stages of the research. By illustrating these ideological, practical and interactional components of research, including some uncomfortable reflections, we hope to encourage more open conversations among researchers and research funders. Through this process, we can strengthen efforts that dismantle unhelpful historical research orthodoxies and move towards re-formulating ways of research practice that are more explicitly anti-racist and inclusive

Young adults’ experiences of biographical retrogression whilst living with long COVID

During the early years (2020–2021) of the COVID‐19 pandemic, relatively little attention focused on experiences of people with long‐lasting symptoms, particularly young adults who were commonly understood to be invulnerable to serious effects of the virus. Drawing on narrative interviews with 15 adults in their twenties and living in the UK when they became ill with long COVID, we explore contextual factors which made their long COVID illness experience, and the wholescale disruption to their lives, challenging. We propose that existing adaptations of the concept of biographical disruption are problematic for this group, and instead suggest that ‘biographical retrogression’ may more accurately reflect these young adults’ experiences. For many of these young adults, their illness occurred at a crucial stage in forming or solidifying (presumed) adult trajectories. Secondly, the recency of long COVID did not allow for comparison with an existing ‘grand narrative’ of recovery, so the future course of their illness was not just unknown for them as individuals; there was no prognostic map against which to assess their symptoms. Thirdly, the lives of people with long COVID have been disrupted in the context of global societal disruption by the same virus, rendering their experiences both topical yet invisible

Face-to-Face Compared With Online Collected Accounts of Health and Illness Experiences: A Scoping Review.

Advocates of online alternatives to face-to-face interviewing suggest online approaches save money and time, whereas others have raised concerns about the quality and content of the resulting data. These issues affect researchers designing and costing their studies and application reviewers and research funders. We conducted a scoping review of English language articles describing the range of online alternative approaches. Furthermore, we systematically identified studies directly comparing online alternatives with face-to-face approaches. Synthesis of these 11 articles (565 participants) suggests that online alternatives should not be viewed as a straightforward replacement for face-to-face, a particularly important finding given the rapid communication changes occurring in the COVID-19 pandemic. When applied with consideration of the evolving evidence on their strengths and weaknesses, online methods may increase the likelihood of obtaining the desired sample, but responses are shorter, less contextual information is obtained, and relational satisfaction and consensus development are lower

GPs’ understanding and practice of safety netting for potential cancer presentations : a qualitative study in primary care

Background Safety netting is a diagnostic strategy used in UK primary care to ensure patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. Despite being recommended in cancer diagnosis guidelines, little evidence exists about which components are effective and feasible in modern-day primary care. Aim To understand the reality of safety netting for cancer in contemporary primary care. Design and setting A qualitative study of GPs in Oxfordshire primary care. Method In-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs were undertaken. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using constant comparison. Results GPs revealed uncertainty about which aspects of clinical practice are considered safety netting. They use bespoke personal strategies, often developed from past mistakes, without knowledge of their colleagues’ practice. Safety netting varied according to the perceived risk of cancer, the perceived reliability of each patient to follow advice, GP working patterns, and time pressures. Increasing workload, short appointments, and a reluctance to overburden hospital systems or create unnecessary patient anxiety have together led to a strategy of selective active follow-up of patients perceived to be at higher risk of cancer or less able to act autonomously. This left patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms of cancer with less robust or absent safety netting. Conclusion GPs would benefit from clearer guidance on which aspects of clinical practice contribute to effective safety netting for cancer. Practice systems that enable active follow-up of patients with low-risk-but-not-no-risk symptoms, which could represent malignancy, could reduce delays in cancer diagnosis without increasing GP workload

Assessing health research grant applications: A retrospective comparative review of a one-stage versus a two-stage application assessment process

BackgroundResearch funders use a wide variety of application assessment processes yet there is little evidence on their relative advantages and disadvantages. A broad distinction can be made between processes with a single stage assessment of full proposals and those that first invite an outline, with full proposals invited at a second stage only for those which are shortlisted. This paper examines the effects of changing from a one-stage to a two-stage process within the UK's National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme which made this change in 2015.MethodsA retrospective comparative design was used to compare eight one-stage funding competitions (912 applications) with eight two-stage funding competitions (1090 applications). Comparisons were made between the number of applications submitted, number of peer and lay reviews required, the duration of the funding round, average external peer review scores, and the total costs involved.ResultsThere was a mean number of 114 applications per funding round for the one-stage process and 136 for the two-stage process. The one-stage process took a mean of 274 days and the two-stage process 348 days to complete, although those who were not funded (i.e. the majority) were informed at a mean of 195 days (mean 79 days earlier) under the two-stage process. The mean peer review score for full applications using the one-stage process was 6.46 and for the two-stage process 6.82 (5.6% difference using a 1-10 scale (with 10 being the highest), but there was no significant difference between the lay reviewer scores. The one-stage process required a mean of 423 peer reviews and 102 lay reviewers and the two-stage process required a mean of 208 peer reviews and 50 lay reviews (mean difference of 215 peer reviews and 52 lay reviews) per funding round. Overall cost per funding round changed from £148,908 for the one-stage process to £105,342 for the two-stage process saving approximately £43,566 per round.ConclusionWe conclude that a two-stage application process increases the number of applications submitted to a funding round, is less burdensome and more efficient for all those involved with the process, is cost effective and has a small increase in peer reviewer scores. For the addition of fewer than 11 weeks to the process substantial efficiencies are gained which benefit funders, applicants and science. Funding agencies should consider adopting a two-stage application assessment process