Search

Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as 'end users' of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of 'mess and noise' in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of 'low stakes' of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of 'novelty' bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The paper reports on an empirical study of Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) in England. Established by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, HWBs act as place-based hubs for leaders in health, social care, local government and other sectors to come together to address health improvement and the wider determinants of health. Methods: We conducted a three-year study of HWBs (2015–2017) in five localities across England. This involved collecting qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with key actors in the HWBs at strategic and operational levels, and focus group sessions with voluntary-sector participants at each HWB. Results: HWBs have largely followed the path of previous partnerships in terms of a lack of clear aims and objectives, lack of ownership and accountability by partners, and an absence of any significant impact on health outcomes. Conclusions: Many of the features of unsuccessful partnership working were largely displayed by HWBs. Boards require more executive power and ownership from the bottom up if they are to have any real impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare is a highly regulated environment. This has driven what could be characterized as a papersafe approach, whereby organizations are required to demonstrate to a multiplicity of regulators, inspectorates and accrediting bodies that they are paper safe. However, for many organizations, this has not produced a system which is actually patient safe; rather it has in practice operated as a parallel system that does not reflect the true state of safety. This project looks at a quality improvement and patient safety programme and critically asks the question of whether it is flawed because of failure to address issues surrounding Doctors and cultural change. We used Johnson & Schole's cultural web framework to explore the attitudes of junior doctors towards a patient safety and quality improvement programme. Data collection was through the use of focus groups backed up with quantitative data from a web based questionnaire survey. It has been demonstrated that Doctors represent a dominant sub-culture within the NHS and their beliefs, attitudes and value are often at odds or unrecognized by senior healthcare managers. Unless the cultural differences are adequately addressed then transformational change projects such as 'Best and Safest Care' are unlikely to succeed. A better understanding of the organizational context allows for more appropriate change interventions to be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: People with cirrhosis are encouraged to participate in shared decision-making with their doctors, but studies suggest that doctors limit the amount of information that is shared. In this study we explore the presence of medical power in clinical encounters in 2015 from a patient perspective and highlight its effects on healthcare interactions. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten people with cirrhosis attending a tertiary liver transplant centre in southern England. We explored their understanding of their disease and prognosis, and their participation in decision-making. Using the lens of medical power as a framework, we analysed findings into thematic sentences to summarise key ideas whilst preserving the complexity of identified concepts. Results: Three key concepts explained patient perspectives of their communication with doctors: (1) portraying a positive image to doctors, (2) avoiding confrontation with doctors, (3) feeling powerless in the face of doctors' medical knowledge. These concepts show deeper dynamic issues of power during healthcare encounters, illustrated by participants' reluctance to voice their concerns and express themselves, challenge decisions, or seek information. Conclusion: People with cirrhosis struggle to articulate their concerns or challenge decisions on their care and treatment and may worry about potential consequences. Our findings demonstrate the continuing persistence of issues of power at play in contemporary health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender differences in the accumulation of pension savings are well documented. Work in this field has concluded that while differing lifetime work profiles (and family history) explained much of the difference, other factors such as pension knowledge and confidence in decision-making, may also be significant. This research, commissioned by the Fawcett Society and funded by Scottish Widows, explores some of these factors through the use of 30 semi-structured interviews and a focus group with women (aged 24–39) about their attitudes and motivations towards pension saving. It concentrates on discussions around pension knowledge, advice and decision-making, and identifies challenges in relation to women’s pension knowledge and the use of male ‘role models’ in making decisions. The article then explores potential policy mechanisms to enhance women’s pension saving for retirement, including the manner in which information and advice is provided and strategies to improve confidence in pension decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the organizational factors affecting the quality of handover in the emergency care pathway and provides a qualitative account of how practitioners try to align their various personal and organizational priorities and backgrounds when handing over patients through care boundaries. Topics discussed include a qualitative account on how organizational priorities like the management of patient flows can affect the quality of handover in emergency care.

Objectives: To identify how decision-makers in the NHS perceive and manage interventional procedures guidance and to determine whether additional information would be useful. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven providers, six commissioners and one policy-maker. The framework approach was used to analyse transcribed data, and emergent themes coded. Data were analysed separately for providers and commissioner organizations. Results: Perceptions about how guidance is managed in provider organizations varied. Some decision-makers considered that guidance is handled very well whereas others think it is suboptimal and haphazard. It is unclear whether clinicians follow procedure for cautionary guidance. In commissioner organizations, guidance is not seen as a priority by most and is not considered an area that will soon enter routine clinical practice. Moreover, commissioners felt that guidance lacked relevance as there is no consideration of whether procedures are cost-effective or affordable. Despite this, respondents perceived that the content and quality of guidance is satisfactory. Useful additional information for inclusion in guidance would be: prevalence, incidence, cost, patients' views, consequences of using the new intervention, comparative information, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Management of interventional procedures guidance in the NHS can be improved. It is important to understand the ways in which guidance meets and fails to meet decision-makers' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]