Search

Objectives The potential and expected benefits of digital health interventions (DHI) have long been discussed, yet substantial challenges are associated with deploying DHI at scale. Insights are presented concerning the implementation of a DHI consisting of a patient-facing app and a digital dashboard for clinicians providing supported self-management for long COVID to support both clinicians and patients.Design Qualitative reflexive thematic analysis, mapped against Normalisation Process Theory.Setting Fifty-five and a half hours of zoom recordings of meetings between clinicians in community and secondary care long COVID clinics and members of the research team.Participants Allied health professionals, service delivery managers and members of the core team, including representatives from industry partners.Results The DHI fitted with contextual circumstances and the design supported flexibility to suit circumstances in different trusts. The DHI also aligned with existing ways of working.Healthcare professionals worked together to support the implementation of the DHI, requiring flexibility to take account of local circumstances. The DHI was appraised in both positive and negative terms by healthcare professionals. Using DHIs was said to have the potential to complement care but not be a replacement for face-to-face clinical input. The DHI was judged to have demonstrated the potential to affect long-established patterns and organisational structures of engagement between healthcare professionals and patients in terms of access to care.Conclusions NPT provided a framework for considering both individual agency and the organisation context, enabling reflections to be made at the level of the structure of services as well as people’s experiences. The discipline of considering first the context, then the work and finally the practical effects helped place order on the ‘mess’ involved in the rapid cycle of developing, refining and implementing a DHI in an atypical environment (a pandemic).

Introduction Women who are migrants and who are pregnant or postpartum are at high risk of poorer perinatal outcomes compared with host country populations due to experiencing numerous additional stressors including social exclusion and language barriers. High-income countries (HICs) host many migrants, including forced migrants who may face additional challenges in the peripartum period. Although HICs’ maternity care systems are often well developed, they are not routinely tailored to the needs of migrant women. The primary objective will be to determine what interventions exist to improve perinatal outcomes for migrant women in HICs. The secondary objective will be to explore the effectiveness of these interventions by exploring the impact on perinatal outcomes. The main outcomes of interest will be rates of preterm birth, birth weight, and number of antenatal or postnatal appointments attended.Methods and analysis This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocols guidelines. EMBASE, EMCARE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science, as well as grey literature sources will be searched from inception up to December 2022. We will include randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and interventional studies of interventions, which aim to improve perinatal outcomes in any HIC. There will be no language restrictions. We will exclude studies presenting only qualitative outcomes and those including mixed populations of migrant and non-migrant women. Screening and data extraction will be completed by two independent reviewers and risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. If a collection of suitably comparable outcomes is retrieved, we will perform meta-analysis applying a random effects model. Presentation of results will comply with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA statement.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. Results will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication and presented at national and international conferences. The findings will inform the work of the Lancet Migration European Hub.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022380678.

Objectives To describe self-reported characteristics and symptoms of treatment-seeking patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS). To assess the impact of symptoms on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patients’ ability to work and undertake activities of daily living.Design Cross-sectional single-arm service evaluation of real-time user data.Setting 31 post-COVID-19 clinics in the UK.Participants 3754 adults diagnosed with PCS in primary or secondary care deemed suitable for rehabilitation.Intervention Patients using the Living With Covid Recovery digital health intervention registered between 30 November 2020 and 23 March 2022.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was the baseline Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). WSAS measures the functional limitations of the patient; scores of ≥20 indicate moderately severe limitations. Other symptoms explored included fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire–Eight Item Depression Scale), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale, Seven-Item), breathlessness (Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale and Dyspnoea-12), cognitive impairment (Perceived Deficits Questionnaire, Five-Item Version) and HRQoL (EQ-5D). Symptoms and demographic characteristics associated with more severe functional limitations were identified using logistic regression analysis.Results 3541 (94%) patients were of working age (18-65); mean age (SD) 48 (12) years; 1282 (71%) were female and 89% were white. 51% reported losing ≥1 days from work in the previous 4 weeks; 20% reported being unable to work at all. Mean WSAS score at baseline was 21 (SD 10) with 53% scoring ≥20. Factors associated with WSAS scores of ≥20 were high levels of fatigue, depression and cognitive impairment. Fatigue was found to be the main symptom contributing to a high WSAS score.Conclusion A high proportion of this PCS treatment-seeking population was of working age with over half reporting moderately severe or worse functional limitation. There were substantial impacts on ability to work and activities of daily living in people with PCS. Clinical care and rehabilitation should address the management of fatigue as the dominant symptom explaining variation in functionality.

Objective To understand the most significant aspects of care experienced by people in opioid substitution treatment (OST) in primary care settings.Design Semistructured individual interviews were conducted, following the critical incidents technique. Interview transcripts were analysed following a thematic analysis approach.Participants Adults aged 18 years or older, receiving OST in UK-based primary care services.Results Twenty-four people in OST were interviewed between January and March 2019. Participants reported several aspects which were significant for their treatment, when engaging with the primary care service. These were grouped into 10 major themes: (1) humanised care; (2) individual bond/connection with the professional; (3) professionals’ experience and knowledge; (4) having holistic care; (5) familiarity; (6) professionals’ commitment and availability to help; (7) anonymity; (8) location; (9) collaborative teamwork; and (10) flexibility and changes around the treatment plan.Conclusions This study included first-hand accounts of people who use drugs about what supports them in their recovery journey. The key lessons learnt from our findings indicate that people who use drugs value receiving treatment in humanised and destigmatised environments. We also learnt that a good relationship with primary care professionals supports their recovery journey, and that treatment plans should be flexible, tailor-made and collaboratively designed with patients.

Objectives Significant problems with patients engaging with diabetes self-management education (DSME) exist. The role of healthcare professionals (HCPs) has been highlighted, with a lack of enthusiasm, inadequate information provision and poor promotion of available programmes all cited as affecting patients’ decisions to attend. However, little is known about HCPs’ views towards DSME. This study investigates the views of HCPs towards self-management generally and self-management in the context of DSME more specifically.Design A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to investigate HCPs views of type 2 diabetes self-management and DSME. Data were analysed thematically and emergent themes were mapped on to the constructs of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).Setting Two boroughs in London, UK.Participants Sampling was purposive to recruit a diverse range of professional roles including GPs, practice nurses, diabetes specialist nurses, healthcare assistants (HCAs), receptionists and commissioners of care.Results Interviews were conducted with 22 participants. The NPT analysis demonstrated that while a self-management approach to diabetes care was viewed by HCPs as necessary and, in principle, valuable, the reality is much more complex. HCPs expressed ambivalence about pushing certain patients into self-managing, preferring to retain responsibility. There was a lack of awareness among HCPs about the content of DSME and benefits to patients. Commitment to and engagement with DSME was tempered by concerns about suitability for some patients. There was little evidence of communication between providers of group-based DSME and HCPs or of HCPs engaging in work to follow-up non-attenders.Conclusions HCPs have concerns about the appropriateness of DSME for all patients and discussed challenges to engaging with and performing the tasks required to embed the approach within practice. DSME, as a means of supporting self-management, was considered important in theory, but there was little evidence of HCPs seeing their role as extending beyond providing referrals.