Search

Abstract Background Social Prescribing is increasingly popular, and several evaluations have shown positive results. However, Social Prescribing is an umbrella term that covers many different interventions. We aimed to test, develop and refine a programme theory explaining the underlying mechanisms operating in Social Prescribing to better enhance its effectiveness by allowing it to be targeted to those who will benefit most, when they will benefit most. Methods We conducted a realist evaluation of a large Social Prescribing organisation in the North of England. Thirty-five interviews were conducted with stakeholders (clients attending Social Prescribing, Social Prescribing staff and general practice staff). Through an iterative process of analysis, a series of context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed, refined and retested at a workshop of 15 stakeholders. The initial programme theory was refined, retested and ‘applied’ to wider theory. Results Social Prescribing in this organisation was found to be only superficially similar to collaborative care. A complex web of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes for its clients are described. Key elements influencing outcomes described by stakeholders included social isolation and wider determinants of health; poor interagency communication for people with multiple needs. Successful Social Prescribing requires a non-stigmatising environment and person-centred care, and shares many features described by the asset-based theory of Salutogenesis. Conclusions The Social Prescribing model studied is holistic and person-centred and as such enables those with a weak sense of coherence to strengthen this, access resistance resources, and move in a health promoting or salutogenic direction.

Abstract Background Patient-centered care (PCC) has been proposed as the way forward in improving primary care for patients with multi-morbidity. However, it is not clear what PCC exactly looks like in practice for patients with multi-morbidity. A better understanding of multi-morbid patients’ views on what PCC should look like and which elements are most important may help to improve care delivery for this vulnerable population. The present study thus aimed to identify views of patients with multi-morbidity on the relative importance of PCC aspects in a Dutch primary care setting. Methods Interviews were conducted with 16 patients with multi-morbidity using Q-methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The participants ranked 28 statements about the eight dimensions of PCC (patients’ preferences, information and education, access to care, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, physical comfort, and coordination of care) by relative importance. By-person factor analysis using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation were used to reveal factors that represent viewpoints. Qualitative interview data were used to interpret the viewpoints. Results The analyses revealed three factors representing three distinct viewpoints of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting. Patients with viewpoint 1 are prepared proactive patients who seem to be well-off and want to be in charge of their own care. To do so, they seek medical information and prefer to be supported by a strongly coordinated multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Patients with viewpoint 2 are everyday patients who visit GPs and require well-coordinated, respectful, and supportive care. Patients with viewpoint 3 are vulnerable patients who are less resourceful in terms of communication skills and finances, and thus require accessible care and professionals taking the lead while treating them with dignity and respect. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that not all patients with multi-morbidity require the same type of care delivery, and that not all aspects of PCC delivery are equally important to all patients.

Background: Social Prescribing is increasingly popular, and several evaluations have shown positive results. However, Social Prescribing is an umbrella term that covers many different interventions. We aimed to test, develop and refine a programme theory explaining the underlying mechanisms operating in Social Prescribing to better enhance its effectiveness by allowing it to be targeted to those who will benefit most, when they will benefit most. Methods: We conducted a realist evaluation of a large Social Prescribing organisation in the North of England. Thirty-five interviews were conducted with stakeholders (clients attending Social Prescribing, Social Prescribing staff and general practice staff). Through an iterative process of analysis, a series of context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed, refined and retested at a workshop of 15 stakeholders. The initial programme theory was refined, retested and 'applied' to wider theory. Results: Social Prescribing in this organisation was found to be only superficially similar to collaborative care. A complex web of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes for its clients are described. Key elements influencing outcomes described by stakeholders included social isolation and wider determinants of health; poor interagency communication for people with multiple needs. Successful Social Prescribing requires a non-stigmatising environment and person-centred care, and shares many features described by the asset-based theory of Salutogenesis. Conclusions: The Social Prescribing model studied is holistic and person-centred and as such enables those with a weak sense of coherence to strengthen this, access resistance resources, and move in a health promoting or salutogenic direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-centered care (PCC) has been proposed as the way forward in improving primary care for patients with multi-morbidity. However, it is not clear what PCC exactly looks like in practice for patients with multi-morbidity. A better understanding of multi-morbid patients' views on what PCC should look like and which elements are most important may help to improve care delivery for this vulnerable population. The present study thus aimed to identify views of patients with multi-morbidity on the relative importance of PCC aspects in a Dutch primary care setting. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 16 patients with multi-morbidity using Q-methodology, which combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. The participants ranked 28 statements about the eight dimensions of PCC (patients' preferences, information and education, access to care, emotional support, family and friends, continuity and transition, physical comfort, and coordination of care) by relative importance. By-person factor analysis using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation were used to reveal factors that represent viewpoints. Qualitative interview data were used to interpret the viewpoints. Results: The analyses revealed three factors representing three distinct viewpoints of patients with multi-morbidity on what is important for patient-centered care in the primary care setting. Patients with viewpoint 1 are prepared proactive patients who seem to be well-off and want to be in charge of their own care. To do so, they seek medical information and prefer to be supported by a strongly coordinated multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. Patients with viewpoint 2 are everyday patients who visit GPs and require well-coordinated, respectful, and supportive care. Patients with viewpoint 3 are vulnerable patients who are less resourceful in terms of communication skills and finances, and thus require accessible care and professionals taking the lead while treating them with dignity and respect. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that not all patients with multi-morbidity require the same type of care delivery, and that not all aspects of PCC delivery are equally important to all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adults with intellectual disabilities have increased early mortality compared with the general population. However, their extent of multimorbidity (two or more additional conditions) compared with the general population is unknown, particularly with regards to physical ill-health, as are associations between comorbidities, neighbourhood deprivation, and age. Methods: We analysed primary health-care data on 1,424,378 adults registered with 314 representative Scottish practices. Data on intellectual disabilities, 32 physical, and six mental health conditions were extracted. We generated standardised prevalence rates by age-groups, gender, and neighbourhood deprivation, then calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) for adults with intellectual disabilities compared to those without, for the prevalence, and number of condition. Results: Eight thousand fourteen (0.56 %) had intellectual disabilities, of whom only 31.8 % had no other conditions compared to 51.6 % without intellectual disabilities (OR 0.26, 95 % 0.25-0.27). The intellectual disabilities group were significantly more likely to have more conditions, with the biggest difference found for three conditions (10.9 % versus 6.8 %; OR 2.28, 95 % CI 2.10-2.46). Fourteen physical conditions were significantly more prevalent, and four cardiovascular conditions occurred less frequently, as did any cancers, and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Five of the six mental health conditions were significantly more prevalent. For the adults with intellectual disabilities, no gradient was seen in extent of multimorbidity with increasing neighbourhood deprivation; indeed findings were similar in the most affluent and most deprived areas. Co-morbidity increased with age but is highly prevalent at all ages, being similar at age 20-25 to 50-54 year olds in the general population. Conclusions: Multi-morbidity burden is greater, occurs at much earlier age, and the profile of health conditions differs, for adults with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population. There is no association with neighbourhood deprivation; people with intellectual disabilities need focussed services irrespective of where they live, and at a much earlier age than the general population. They require specific initiatives to reduce inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Goal setting is a recommended approach in clinical care that can help individuals with multi-morbidities and their caregivers manage chronic conditions. In this paper, the types of goals that were important for older persons with multi-morbidities were explored from the perspectives of patients, their caregivers and physicians. Comparisons of goals were made across each patient, caregiver and physician triad to determine alignment. Methods: The study was a qualitative descriptive study facilitated through semi-structured one-on-one interviews. The study took place between May and October 2012 at a Family Health Team located in Ontario, Canada. The sample included 28 family medicine patients, their informal caregivers and family physicians. Socio-demographic data were analyzed via descriptive statistics in SPSS Version 17. Open ended questions pertaining to patient goals of care were analyzed thematically using NVivo9. Themes were derived on patient care goals for each of the participant groups (patients, caregivers and family physicians). Following this, alignment of goals across each of the triads was examined. Goal alignment was defined as concurrence on at least one goal by all three parties in a particular triad (i.e., patient, caregiver and family physician). Results: Just over half of the patients were male (56%); they had an average age of 82.3 years and 4.61 health conditions. Most of the caregivers were female (82%); and 61% were a spouse of the care recipient. At the aggregate level, common goals expressed among patients, caregivers and family physicians were the maintenance of functional independence of patients and the management of their symptoms or functional challenges. Despite these common goals at the aggregate level, little alignment of goals was found when looking across patient-caregiver and physician triads. Lack of alignment tended to occur when patients had unstable or declining functional or cognitive health; when safety threats were noted; and when enhanced care services were required. Conclusions: The data suggest that goal divergence tends to occur when patients are less medically stable. While goal divergence may be expected due to the different roles and responsibilities of each of the players involved, these perspectives should be illuminated when building care plans. Further research is required to observe the extent to which goal setting occurs in family practice as well as how it can be embedded as a standard of practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]