Search

Introduction: Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co‐production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK. Methods: The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five‐step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co‐production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy. Results: Nine principles for how to do co‐production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long‐term; co‐production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency. Conclusion: The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co‐production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co‐production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co‐production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long‐term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co‐production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Falls are common in older adults and are associated with injuries and serious ongoing problems. This paper aims to present a participatory evaluation of a Falls Awareness Programme implemented in South Wales for older adults living in sheltered housing schemes or in the community. It identifies methodological issues and provides recommendations for evaluation design and methods for community-based interventions in the future. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed-methods study combining a non-experimental pretest–posttest design with face-to-face focus groups. Findings: Concerns about falling and self-reported general health at baseline were worse for participants living in sheltered housing schemes, compared to participants in the community. There was no statistically significant change between baseline and follow-up in general health or concerns about falling; however, the data suggesting the programme may be more effective for people in sheltered housing schemes. Participants reported making small, but sustainable behaviour changes following the programme and described unexpected outcomes from the programme, e.g. socialising and meeting new people. Originality/value: This paper demonstrates the benefit of engaging older adults in research using a participatory approach, highlights key components of community-based interventions for older people and identifies some methodological issues when conducting evaluations in the community. Specifically, it highlights the importance of selecting appropriate measurement tools for data collection and the utility of continuous monitoring where programme participation is flexible and fluid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the 2020 COVID‐19 pandemic, one of the key components of many countries' strategies to reduce the spread of the virus is contact tracing. Objective: To explore public attitudes to a COVID‐19 contact tracing app in the United Kingdom. Setting: Online video‐conferencing. Participants: 27 participants, UK residents aged 18 years and older. Methods: Qualitative study consisting of six focus groups carried out between 1st‐12th May, 2020 (39‐50 days into the UK 'lockdown'). Results: Participants were divided as to whether or not they felt they would use the app. Analysis revealed five themes: (1) lack of information and misconceptions surrounding COVID‐19 contact tracing apps; (2) concerns over privacy; (3) concerns over stigma; (4)concerns over uptake; and (5) contact tracing as the 'greater good'. Concerns over privacy, uptake and stigma were particularly significant amongst those stated they will not be using the app, and the view that the app is for the 'greater good' was particularly significant amongst those who stated they will be using the app. One of the most common misconceptions about the app was that it could allow users to specifically identify and map COVID‐19 cases amongst their contacts and in their vicinity. Conclusions: Our participants were torn over whether digital contact tracing is a good idea or not, and views were heavily influenced by moral reasoning. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients were involved in this study. The public were not involved in the development of the research questions, research design or outcome measures. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Summary results were disseminated via email to participants prior to publication for feedback and comment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of the first stage of a project seeking to improve interprofessional working between general practice and adult social care teams. It develops the current evidence base through findings from focus groups and reflects on the implications of the findings for interprofessional collaboration. Design/methodology/approach -- The project involved running seven focus groups with general practice staff and adult social work teams to explore their perceptions and understanding of each other. Findings -- The focus groups highlighted that the negative aspects of interprofessional working outweighed the positives. Negatives included perceptions of different value bases, a lack of knowledge about each others' roles and responsibilities which resulted in resorting to stereotypes, poor interprofessional communication and a sense of an unspoken professional hierarchy with general practitioners (GPs) at the top leading preventing a culture of appropriate challenge. Research limitations/implications -- The research has only been conducted with four GP practices and three social work teams that had expressed an interest in improving their interprofessional working. Therefore the findings may not be generalisable. Practical implications -- The case study suggests that there is a lack of effective interprofessional working between social care teams and general practice. With the current health and social care agenda focused on integration, this suggests there should be a greater focus on this area. Originality/value -- This paper illustrates that despite many years of policy makers promoting better integration, the quality of the interprofessional collaboration between social care teams and general practice remains poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complex interventions can be challenging to summarise and interpret. One approach to attempt to succinctly describe such complexity is through the development of a logic model. This study considers a complex intervention that aimed to widen the role and responsibilities of housing officers, through a neighbourhood-based system. Methods: We developed a logic model using both primary and secondary data collection alongside expert opinion in order to understand the complex relationships between the intervention being delivered and the actual and potential outcomes. Development of the model was supported by a range of data generation methods, including a scoping review of the literature, telephone survey with housing tenants, in-depth interviews with tenants and housing staff, and workshops with key stakeholders to help to develop and then validate the model. Results: Our logic model highlights the key role of interpersonal relationships in building coherent neighbourhoods through intervention success and tenant satisfaction. We developed our initial model from analysis of documents relating to the intervention, along with wider literature, which detailed the policy context, theoretical approach and the expected outcomes. Conclusions: The process of defining our final logic model generated insights that would not have emerged from a more narrative synthesis of secondary and primary data. The most important of these was a clear message about the central role of relationships between neighbourhood officers and tenants. In similar interventions, thought needs to be given on how a relationship can be built between a tenant and a neighbourhood officer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus. This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond. On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically. There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures. Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours. • There has been considerable global effort in developing Covid-19 antibody tests. • There are major gaps in evidence about immunity with a positive antibody test. • What the results mean for subsequent immunity and behaviour is unclear. • Antibody tests have the potential to cause discrimination and stigmatisation. • A major campaign, developed with target audiences, should be launched before rollout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop a simple health literacy intervention aimed at supporting informed reproductive choice among members of UK communities practising customary consanguineous marriage. Background: The contribution of 'health literacy' to reducing health inequalities and improving primary health-care efficiency is increasingly recognised. Enhancing genetic literacy has received particular attention recently. Consanguineous marriage is customarily practised among some UK minority ethnic communities and carries some increased risk of recessive genetic disorders among offspring compared with unions among unrelated partners. The need to enhance genetic literacy on this issue has been highlighted, but no national response has ensued. Instead, a range of undocumented local responses are emerging. Important knowledge gaps remain regarding how the development and implementation of culturally appropriate, effective and sustainable responses can be achieved. Methods: Our co-design approach involved active participation by local people. Initial insight generation employed six focus group discussions and 14 individual interviews to describe current understandings and information needs. A total of 11 personas (heuristic narrative portraits of community 'segments') resulted; four participatory workshops provided further understanding of: preferred information channels; feasible information conveyance; and responses to existing materials. Prototype information resources were then developed and feedback gathered via two workshops. Following further refinement, final feedback from health-care professionals and community members ensured accuracy and appropriateness. Findings: The project demonstrated the utility of co-design for addressing an issue often considered complex and sensitive. With careful planning and orchestration, active participation by diverse community members was achieved. Key learning included: the importance of establishing trusting and respectful relationships; responding to diversity within the community; and engendering a creative and enjoyable experience. The resultant materials were heavily shaped by local involvement. Evaluative work is now needed to assess impacts on knowledge and service uptake. Longer term sustainability will depend on whether innovative community-level work is accompanied by broader strategy including investment in services and professional development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article adopts a realist approach to evaluate a social prescribing pilot in the areas of Hackney and City in London (United Kingdom). It unpacks the contextual factors and mechanisms that influenced the development of this pilot for the benefits of GPs, commissioners and practitioners, and reflects on the realist approach to evaluation as a tool for the evaluation of health interventions. Primary care faces considerable challenges including the increase in long-term conditions, GP consultation rates, and widening health inequalities. With its emphasis on linking primary care to non-clinical community services via a social prescribing coordinator (SPC), some models of social prescribing could contribute to reduce the burden on primary care, tackle health inequalities and encourage people to make greater use of non-clinical forms of support. This realist analysis was based on qualitative interviews with users, commissioners, a GP survey, focus groups and learning events to explore stakeholders’ experience. To enable a detailed analysis, we adapted the realist approach by subdividing the social prescribing pathway into stages, each with contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes. SPCs were pivotal to the effective functioning of the social prescribing service and responsible for the activation and initial beneficial impact on users. Although social prescribing shows significant potential for the benefit of patients and primary care, several challenges need to be considered and overcome, including ‘buy in’ from some GPs, branding, and funding for the third sector in a context where social care cuts are severely affecting the delivery of health care. With its emphasis on context and mechanisms, the realist evaluation approach is useful in understanding how to identify and improve health interventions, and analyse in greater detail the contribution of different stakeholders. As the SPC is central to social prescribing, more needs to be done to understand their role conceptually and practically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The value of e-learning in medical education is widely recognized but there is little evidence of its value in teaching medical students about public health. Such evidence is needed because medical students' engagement with public health has been low. We present three recent case studies from UK medical schools to illustrate diverse ways in which online approaches can increase medical students' engagement with learning public health. Methods A comparative case study approach was used applying quantitative and qualitative data to examine engagement in terms of uptake/use amongst eligible students, acceptability and perceived effectiveness using an analytic framework based on Seven Principles of Effective Teaching. Results Across the three case studies, most (67-85%) eligible students accessed online materials, and rated them more favourably than live lectures. Students particularly valued opportunities to use e-learning flexibly in terms of time and place. Online technologies offered new ways to consolidate learning of key public health concepts. Although students found contributing to online discussions challenging, it provided opportunities for students to explore concepts in depth and enabled students that were uncomfortable speaking in face-to-face discussions to participate. Conclusions E-learning can be applied in diverse ways that increase medical student engagement with public health teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following government commitments to reducing health inequalities from 1997 onwards, the UK has been recognised as a global leader in health inequalities research and policy. Yet health inequalities have continued to widen by most measures, prompting calls for new research agendas and advocacy to facilitate greater public support for the upstream policies that evidence suggests are required. However, there is currently no agreement as to what new research might involve or precisely what public health egalitarians ought to be advocating. This article presents an analysis of discussions among 52 researchers to consider the feasibility that research-informed advocacy around particular solutions to health inequalities may emerge in the UK. The data indicate there is a consensus that more should be been done to learn from post-1997 efforts to reduce health inequalities, and an obvious desire to provide clearer policy guidance in future. However, discussions as to where researchers should now focus their efforts and with whom researchers ought to be engaging reveal three distinct ways of approaching health inequalities, each of which has its own epistemological foundations. Such differences imply that a consensus on reducing health inequalities is unlikely to materialise. Instead, progress seems most likely if all three approaches are simultaneously enabled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present qualitative research findings about how perceptions of criminal prosecutions for the transmission of HIV interact with the provision of high-quality HIV health and social care in England and Wales. Seven focus groups were undertaken with a total of 75 diverse professionals working in clinical and community-based services for people with HIV. Participants’ understanding of the law in this area was varied, with many knowing the basic requirements for a prosecution, yet lacking confidence in the best way to communicate key details with those using their service. Prosecutions for HIV transmission have influenced, and in some instances, disrupted the provision of HIV services, creating ambivalence and concern among many providers about their new role as providers of legal information. The way that participants approached the topic with service users was influenced by their personal views on individual and shared responsibility for health, their concerns about professional liability and their degree of trust in non-coercive health promotion approaches to managing public health. These findings reveal an underlying ambivalence among many providers about how they regard the interface between criminal law, coercion and public health. It is also apparent that in most HIV service environments, meaningful exploration of practical ethical issues is relatively rare. The data presented here will additionally be of use to managers and providers of HIV services in order that they can provide consistent and confident support and advice to people with HIV. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction Foetal alcohol spectrum disorders ( FASD) are a set of preventable conditions where the foetus is exposed to alcohol in utero and as a result suffers adverse consequences. To develop a public health strategy related to FASD, it is important to first establish what is known by the public about this condition. This study aimed to assess the current level of knowledge about FASD in the UK general population. Methods A mixed methodology study was conducted using a 17-item questionnaire and focus group sessions. Four focus groups were held with an average of 10 people in each group. Semi-structured questions and thematic analysis of interviews alongside quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data was completed. The research was approved by an National Health service (NHS) research ethical committee. Results A total of 674 people responded to the questionnaire and a majority (86.7%) had heard about FASD, with most receiving their information from the media (26.2%) or from their work (27.7%). Four broad themes emerged. Overall these were: a general lack of knowledge about the subject; information about the subject needed to be personally relevant; there was a need for further education; and there was a lack of clarity in the current guidance on alcohol use in pregnancy. Discussion and conclusions Currently there appears to be a superficial level of knowledge about FASD in the UK general public. More detailed work in subgroups, such as young women, to identify their specific needs may be necessary before targeted public health and educational interventions can be developed to meet the needs of the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]