Search

Introduction: Associations between structural inequalities and health are well established. However, there is limited work examining this link in relation to mental health, or that centres public perspectives. This study explores people's experience and sense‐making of inequality in their daily lives, with particular consideration of impacts on mental health. Methods: We conducted a peer research study. Participants had to live in one of two London Boroughs and have an interest in inequalities and mental health. Using social media, newsletters, local organisations and our peer researchers' contacts, we recruited 30 participants who took photos representing their experience of inequality and discussed them during semi‐structured interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified in this study: (1) inequalities are unjust, multilayered and intertwined with mental health. Accounts demonstrated a deep understanding of inequalities and their link to mental health outcomes, describing inequalities as 'suffering' and 'not good for anyone'. Financial, housing, immigration and healthcare problems exacerbated poor mental health, with racism, gender‐based violence and job loss also contributing factors for both poor mental health and experiences of inequality; (2) inequalities exclude and have far‐reaching mental health consequences, impacting personal sense of belonging and perceived societal value and (3) moving forwards—addressing long‐standing inequality and poor public mental health necessitated coping and resilience strategies that are often unacknowledged and undervalued by support systems. Conclusion: Lived experience expertise was central in this study, creating an innovative methodological approach. To improve public mental health, we must address the everyday, painful structural inequalities experienced by many as commonplace and unfair. New policies and strategies must be found that involve communities, redistributing resources and power, building on a collective knowledge base, to coproduce actions combatting inequalities and improving population mental health. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was peer‐led, designed and carried out by researchers who had experiences of poor mental health. Six authors of the paper worked as peer researchers on this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with severe mental illness (SMI) experience higher rates and poorer outcomes of physical long‐term conditions (LTCs). The management of SMI and LTCs is highly complex and many people with SMI rely on informal carers for support, which may lead to high levels of caregiver burden, and caregiver burnout. Caregiver burnout can result in poor health outcomes for informal carers and a reduction in the quality of care they are able to provide. Therefore, it is important to understand the caring experience to identify and address factors that contribute to burden and burnout. Methods: This paper reports a secondary qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups conducted with informal carers of people who have coexisting SMI and LTCs. We recruited 12 informal carers in England between December 2018 and April 2019. The transcripts were coded and analysed thematically. Results: We identified two overarching themes and five subthemes. The themes included 'Fighting on all fronts: Mounting strain between demands and resources', which described the challenge of providing care in the context of coexisting SMI and LTCs, and 'Safekeeping: The necessity of chronic hypervigilance', which captured how informal carers' roles were defined by managing high‐risk situations, leading to hypervigilance and paternalistic approaches to care. Conclusion: The experience of informal carers for people with SMI and coexisting LTCs is marked by limited access to support and the management of significant risk, which could contribute to high caregiver burden. Further primary research is needed to understand how the experiences of the caregiver role for people with SMI and LTCs influence caregiver burden. Patient or Public Contribution: Our PPI panel DIAMONDS Voice provided guidance on this study from conception, design and development of interview guides and recruitment materials to final write‐up. DIAMONDS Voice consists of service users and carers who have experience of SMI and LTCs. Three carer members reviewed the final manuscript, and two are credited as authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, it is estimated that one in three adults live with two or more long‐term conditions (multiple long‐term conditions, MLTCs), that require self‐management. People who experience socioeconomic deprivation face significant health inequalities due to a range of interrelated characteristics that lead to a lack of resources and opportunities. Previous research with underserved populations indicate low levels of trust towards primary care providers and potential barriers for developing patient‐healthcare professional relationships. The purpose of this paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to self‐managing MLTCs, amongst people who experience socioeconomic deprivation. Methods: Semistructured one‐to‐one interviews with adults (n = 28) living in London and Sheffield, United Kingdom with MLTCs who are experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Participants were recruited through general practices, community channels and social media. Data were analysed in NVivo using reflexive thematic analysis methods. Findings: Four analytical themes were developed: (1) challenges in accessing healthcare services, financial assistance, and cultural awareness; (2) empowerment and disempowerment through technology, including digital exclusion, and use of technology; (3) impact and causes of exclusion on self‐management, including social isolation, area‐based and economic exclusion, and health‐related stigma and (4) adapting self‐management strategies, including cost‐effective, and culturally/lifestyle appropriate strategies. Conclusions: Future health interventions and services need to be developed with consideration of the combined complexities of managing MLTCs while experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Increased awareness in practitioners and commissioners of the complexities surrounding the lives of people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation, and the need for targeted strategies to promote self‐management of MLTCs are of great importance. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group contributed to all stages of the study, including providing important feedback on study documents (topic guides and recruitment materials), as well as providing critical insights surrounding the interpretation of interview data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In England, primary care networks (PCNs) offer opportunities to improve access to and sustainability of general practice through collaboration between groups of practices to provide care with a broader range of practitioner roles. However, there are concerns that these changes may undermine continuity of care. Our study investigates what the organisational shift to PCNs means for continuity of care. Methods: The paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews with general practitioners and other healthcare professionals (HCPs, n = 33) in 19 practices in five PCNs, and their patients (n = 35). Three patient cohorts within each participating practice were recruited, based on anticipated higher or lower needs for continuity of care: patients over 65 years with polypharmacy, patients with anxiety or depression and 'working age' adults aged between 18 and 45 years. Findings: Patients and clinicians perceived changes to continuity in PCNs in our study. Larger‐scale care provision in PCNs required better care coordination and information‐sharing processes, aimed at improving care for 'vulnerable' patients in target groups. However, new working arrangements and ways of delivering care in PCNs undermine HCPs' ability to maintain continuity through ongoing relationships with patients. Patients experience this in terms of reduced availability of their preferred clinician, inefficiencies in care and unfamiliarity of new staff, roles and processes. Conclusions: New practitioners need to be effectively integrated to support effective team‐based care. However, for patients, especially those not deemed 'vulnerable', this may not be sufficient to counter the loss of relationship with their practice. Therefore, caution is required in relation to designating patients as in need of, or not in need of continuity. Rather, continuity for all patients could be maintained through a dynamic understanding of the need for it as fluctuating and situational and by supporting clinicians to provide follow‐up care. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): A PPI group was recruited and consulted during the study for feedback on the study design, recruitment materials and interpretation of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore the experiences, acceptability and utility of a decision aid for family carers of people with dementia towards the end of life. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with a sample of family carers enroled into a 6‐month feasibility study in England, sampling to gain a range of experiences and views, based on relationship to person they cared for (e.g., spouse, adult child), age, gender, and self‐reported use of the decision aid during the feasibility study. Interviews were conducted in March 2021–July 2021 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used COREQ checklist to report our methods and results. Results: Family carers found the decision aid acceptable, describing it as comprehensive, accessible with relevant information and its presentation enabled good engagement. Experiences of the decision aid covered four main themes which demonstrated the perceived acceptability and utility: 1. A source of support and reassurance; 2. Empowering conversations and confidence; 3. Including the person living with dementia; and 4. Breaking down complexity. Conclusions: An aid focussing on decisions about dementia end of life care supported family carers break down complex and emotive decisions, not only with making decisions in the moment but also in future planning. Patient or Public Contribution: Our three Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members (all former family carers) were crucial throughout the wider study. PPI supported development of the topic guides, supported trialling the topic guide and interview procedures and finally supported the development of themes as part of the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. Methods: An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE‐ICP Collaboration. Findings: Twenty‐three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self‐doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. Conclusion: We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Problem‐solving skills (PSS) help to provide a systematic approach to dealing with and managing complex problems. The overall aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of developing and adapting a prison‐based PSS workbook for adults within a medium‐ and low‐secure hospital. Method: We used the Medical Research Council framework in our participatory mixed methods study incorporating an adapted survey (to identify what types of problems people experience in secure hospitals), a series of three interactive workshops (to co‐produce two case study examples for a workbook) and we gathered feedback from patients and hospital staff on the acceptability and feasibility of the workbook. Data from the survey were used to inform the case study examples, and the feedback from patients and hospital staff was descriptively summarised and the results consolidated. Results: In total, 82 (51%) patients took part in the survey; 22 patients and 49 hospital staff provided feedback on the workbook. The survey results indicated that patients regularly experience problems while in the hospital. Patients reported problems relating to restrictions of freedom and boredom. The workshops produced two case studies for the workbooks, with mainly positive patient and staff feedback. More work is required to improve the visual representation of the characters in the case studies, the amount and content of the language and the mechanism of the intervention delivery. Conclusion: The adaptation process proved acceptable and feasible to both patients and staff. The co‐production methodology for the workbook and feedback from patients and staff was an effective way of iteratively refining the materials to ensure that they were both meaningful and acceptable to staff and patients. Subsequent work is required to develop the workbook and evaluate the feasibility of the intervention delivery, recruitment rates, uptake and adherence to the PSS using a randomised controlled trial. Patient or Public Contribution: At each stage of the project consultation with patients and/or hospital staff was involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of Meals on Wheels (MoWs) service users (SUs), and people who refer them to MoWs ('referrers'), with accessing and commencing the service in England, the barriers that might hinder service uptake, and what information would be valued when considering accessing the service. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted in May–July 2022 with seven SUs and 21 referrers, recruited from four MoWs providers across England. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Participants indicated various pathways into the service, but referrers (family members) were more likely to be the ones enquiring about, and commencing, MoWs for SUs. Once an enquiry about MoWs had been made, the service was perceived as straightforward to set up. However, existing preconceptions and stereotypes were perceived to act as barriers to accessing MoWs. Information that participants deemed important to have available when deciding on whether to access MoWs related to the meals, the specific services provided, the reliability and flexibility of delivery and the cost of services. Conclusion: These findings could inform MoWs service providers' public awareness strategies about MoWs, to facilitate referrals to the service for adults with care and support needs. Patient or Public Contribution: An advisory group of people with lived experience of MoWs (users of the service and their family referrers) extensively discussed the findings of the research and advised on the implications and future dissemination steps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Head and neck cancer (HNC) is the eighth most common cancer in the United Kingdom. Survival rates improve when the cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, highlighting a key need to identify at‐risk patients. This study aimed to explore opportunistic HNC identification and referral by community pharmacists (CPs) using a symptom‐based risk assessment calculator, from the perspective of patients with a diagnosis of HNC. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit patients from the HNC pathway in three large teaching hospitals in Northern England. Qualitative methodology was used to collect data through an iterative series of semistructured telephone interviews. Framework analysis was utilised to identify key themes. Results: Four main themes were constructed through the analytic process: (1) HNC presentation and seeking help; (2) the role of the CP; (3) public perception of HNC and (4) the role of a symptom‐based risk calculator. Participants agreed that CPs could play a role in the identification and referral of suspected HNCs, but there were concerns about access as patients frequently only encounter the medicine counter assistant when they visit the pharmacy. HNC symptoms are frequently attributed to common or minor conditions initially and therefore considered not urgent, leading to delays in seeking help. While there is public promotion for some cancers, there is little known about HNC. Early presentation of HNC can be quite variable, therefore raising awareness would help. The use of a symptom‐based risk calculator was considered beneficial if it enabled earlier referral and diagnosis. Participants suggested that it would also be useful if the public were made aware of it and could self‐assess their symptoms. Conclusion: In principle, CPs could play a role in the identification and referral of HNC, but there was uncertainty as to how the intervention would work. Future research is needed to develop an intervention that would facilitate earlier identification and referral of HNC while not disrupting CP work and that would promote HNC and the risk calculator more widely. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was integrated throughout the project. Initially, the proposal was discussed during a Cancer Head and Neck Group Experience (CHANGE) PPIE meeting. CHANGE was set up to support HNC research in 2018. The group is composed of seven members (four female, three male) with an age range of 50–71 years, who were diagnosed at Sunderland Royal Hospital. A patient representative from the University of Sunderland PPIE group and a trustee of the Northern HNC Charity were recruited as co‐applicants. They attended project management group meetings and reviewed patient‐facing documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care home staff working during the COVID‐19 pandemic experienced higher levels of stress and increased workloads. People from diverse ethnic backgrounds were disproportionately affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. This study explored the identity experiences of care home staff from diverse ethnic backgrounds in the context of working during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: Fourteen semistructured interviews were conducted between May 2021 and April 2022 with ethnic minority care home staff in England, who worked during the pandemic. Participants were recruited using convenience and theoretical sampling. Interviews were conducted via telephone or online platforms. A social constructivist grounded theory methodology was utilised in analysing the data. Findings: Participants described five key processes which facilitated or hindered the impact that their experiences had on their identity: dealing with uncertainty and transitioning into a COVID‐19 world; difficult emotions; experiences of discrimination and racism; the response from the care home and societal systems; and the personal vs collective responsibility. When participants' physical and psychological needs went unmet by support structures within the care home and/or society, they experienced a sense of injustice, lack of control and being unvalued or discriminated against by others. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of recognising the unique needs of staff from diverse ethnic backgrounds working in care homes and adapting working practices to improve impact on identity, job satisfaction and staff retention. Patient and Public Involvement: One care home worker was involved in developing the topic guide and helping to interpret the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand how materiality affects patient and public involvement (PPI) for commissioning and leading health and care services in the English National Health Service (NHS) context. Context: From April 2013 groups of general practitioners (GPs) became members of NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to assess needs and procure core health services for and with local communities. Since July 2022, integrated care systems (ICSs) have subsumed this responsibility. NHS reorganisations have been driven by the promise of more effective and efficient health care and have led to a long history of PPI on economic, political, and moral grounds. Few studies researching PPI in clinical commissioning exist and fewer still have explored a more agentic understanding of materiality and its impact on PPI. Study Design: A focused ethnography was used to examine PPI for clinical commissioning within two CCG case study sites in England. Three CCG Governing Body lay representatives, nine GP commissioners and seven service user representatives took part in focus groups and/or were interviewed. Fifteen nonparticipant observations were also carried out at CCG meetings and the associated materiality was examined. Findings: The materiality of activities involved in clinical commissioning influences and shapes the nature of PPI. These forms of materiality may dilute and subvert meaningful engagement and involvement that relies on trust, leadership, learning, and partnership working. Conclusion: System leaders in ICSs should consider the significance of materiality in centrally driven processes involved in PPI commissioning to reduce barriers and ensure meaningful partnerships within local communities. Patient and Public Contribution: The study design ensured PPI throughout the research process in keeping with contemporary research practice guidance. The project steering committee included service users with current or recent PPI clinical commissioning experience outside of the study sites. There was PPI involvement in the original study proposal and its development including the bid for doctoral funds on which this study is based. All were involved in assessing the rigour of the data collection, interpretation of the findings and ensuring the project remained true to the aims of the study. Two members have also participated in presentation of the study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Blood tests are commonly used in primary care as a tool to aid diagnosis, and to offer reassurance and validation for patients. If doctors and patients do not have a shared understanding of the reasons for testing and the meaning of results, these aims may not be fulfilled. Shared decision‐making is widely advocated; yet, most research focusses on treatment decisions rather than diagnostic decisions. The aim of this study was to explore communication and decision‐making around diagnostic blood tests in primary care. Methods: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with patients and clinicians in UK primary care. Patients were interviewed at the time of blood testing, with a follow‐up interview after they received test results. Interviews with clinicians who requested the tests provided paired data to compare clinicians' and patients' expectations, experiences and understandings of tests. Interviews were analysed thematically using inductive and deductive coding. Results: A total of 80 interviews with 28 patients and 19 doctors were completed. We identified a mismatch in expectations and understanding of tests, which led to downstream consequences including frustration, anxiety and uncertainty for patients. There was no evidence of shared decision‐making in consultations preceding the decision to test. Doctors adopted a paternalistic approach, believing that they were protecting patients from anxiety. Conclusion: Patients were not able to develop informed preferences and did not perceive that choice is possible in decisions about testing, because they did not have sufficient information and a shared understanding of tests. A lack of shared understanding at the point of decision‐making led to downstream consequences when test results did not fulfil patients' expectations. Although shared decision‐making is recommended as best practice, it does not reflect the reality of doctors' and patients' accounts of testing; a broader model of shared understanding seems to be more relevant to the complexity of primary care diagnosis. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient and public involvement group comprising five participants with lived experience of blood testing in primary care met regularly during the study. They contributed to the development of the research objectives, planning recruitment methods, reviewing patient information leaflets and topic guides and also contributed to discussion of emerging themes at an early stage in the analysis process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Remote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID‐19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID‐19. Methods: A rapid mixed‐methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross‐sectional survey and semi‐structured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their carers (n = 3). 'Care' relied on support from staff members and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement (e.g., hesitancy to self‐escalate care). Engagement was influenced by patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease of use of informational and material resources (e.g., equipment) and service factors. Conclusion: Remote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self‐manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet, many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. Patient or Public Contribution: The study team met with service users and public members of the evaluation teams throughout the project in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools and data interpretation and were conducted to also discuss study dissemination. Public patient involvement (PPI) members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. Some members of the public also piloted the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript, and the manuscript was amended accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many countries are introducing low‐dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. Methods: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi‐structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening‐naïve current and former smokers (aged 55–73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. Results: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response—participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement—participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension—participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. Conclusion: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. Patient or Public Contribution: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In 2020 England moved to an opt‐out deceased donation law. We aimed to investigate the views of a mixed stakeholder group comprising people with kidney disease, family members and healthcare practitioners towards the change in legislation. We investigated the expected impacts of the new legislation on deceased‐donor and living‐donor transplantation, and views on media campaigns regarding the law change. Methods: We undertook in‐depth qualitative interviews with people with kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4) and healthcare practitioners (n = 15). Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity for patients and healthcare practitioners. Family members were recruited through snowball sampling and posters. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes with six subthemes were identified: (i) Expectations of impact (Hopeful patients; Cautious healthcare professionals), (ii) Living‐donor transplantation (Divergent views; Unchanged clinical recommendations), (iii) Media campaigns (Single message; Highlighting recipient benefits). Patients expected the law change would result in more deceased‐donor transplant opportunities. Conclusions: Clinicians should ensure patients and families are aware of the current evidence regarding the impact of opt‐out consent: expectations of an increased likelihood of receiving a deceased‐donor transplant are not currently supported by the evidence. This may help to prevent a decline in living‐donor transplantation seen in other countries with similar legislation. Media campaigns should include a focus on the impact of organ receipt. Patient or Public Contribution: Two patient representatives from the Kidney Disease Health Integration Team, Primrose Granville and Soumeya Bouacida, contributed to the content and design of the study documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our study aimed to evaluate to what extent Zero2 Expo's 'Birthing a Better Future', a co‐created multimedia exhibition, was effective in raising awareness on the importance of the first 1001 days of life and explore what refinements would help to optimize the impact of future exhibitions. Methods: We conducted a mixed‐methods evaluation of the exhibition delivered in the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. Through convenience sampling, 14 participants were selected to participate in 12 structured interviews and 19 participants completed a questionnaire. Interviews were thematically analysed alongside quantitative analysis of questionnaire responses through Likert scales. Results: The majority (78.6%, n = 11/14) of participants who completed the questionnaire either agreed or strongly agreed that the exhibition raised their awareness about the first 1001 days of life. This was supported by the analysis of interviews. The use of art was found to provoke an emotional engagement from participants. Participants felt that the length of the written pieces and location of the exhibition were important factors for designers to consider in future exhibitions. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that multimedia exhibitions, combining science with art, may be an effective way to raise awareness of public health messages. Engaging with key stakeholders will be an essential step in order to improve future public health exhibitions. Public Contribution: When designing the study, the public reviewed the study tools, which were refined based on their feedback. At every phase of the study, members of the public who are artists co‐created the exhibition content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]