Search

Background: Even prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ample evidence that loneliness and social isolation negatively impacted physical and mental health, employability, and are a financial burden on the state. In response, there has been significant policy-level attention on tackling loneliness. The objective of this scoping review was to conduct a loneliness policy landscape analysis across 52 countries of the UN European country groups. Our policy analysis sought to highlight commonalities and differences between the different national approaches to manage loneliness, with the goal to provide actionable recommendations for the consideration of policymakers wishing to develop, expand or review existing loneliness policies. Methods: We searched governmental websites using the Google search engine for publicly available documents related to loneliness and social isolation. Seventy-eight documents were identified in total, from which 23 documents were retained. Exclusion of documents was based on predetermined criteria. A structured content analysis approach was used to capture key information from the policy documents. Contextual data were captured in a configuration matrix to highlight common and unique themes. Results: We could show that most policies describe loneliness as a phenomenon that was addressed to varying degrees in different domains such as social, health, geographical, economic and political. Limited evidence was found regarding funding for suggested interventions. We synthesised actionable recommendations for the consideration of policy makers focusing on the use of language, prioritisation of interventions, revisiting previous campaigns, sharing best practice across borders, setting out a vision, evaluating interventions, and the need for the rapid and sustainable scalability of interventions. Conclusions: Our study provides the first overview of the national loneliness policy landscape, highlighting the increasing prioritisation of loneliness and social isolation as a major public health and societal issue. Our findings suggest that policymakers can sustain this momentum and strengthen their strategies by incorporating rigorous, evidence-based intervention evaluations and fostering international collaborations for knowledge sharing. We believe that policymakers can more effectively address loneliness by directing funds to develop and implement interventions that impact the individual, the community and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London. Methods and findings: We conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting. Conclusions: Programs such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally changed the way services are delivered. Self-care, including good hygiene practices and avoidance of risk was emphasised as the key measure to tackle the pandemic in the early stages. Objective: To understand how self-reported professional attitudes, perceptions and practices of self-care have changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Cross-sectional online survey and semi-structured qualitative interview. Setting: Health care. Participants: 304 healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: A wide range of HCPs, including pharmacists, nurses, doctors, social prescribers and other designations took part in a 27-item anonymous online survey. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with nine healthcare professionals explored attitudes to and practices of self-care before and during the pandemic. Views were sought on the permanence and implications of changes. Data were analysed using routine statistics and thematic analysis to identify major themes. Results: A total of 304 HCPs responded to the survey fully. Nine participated in a semi-structured interview. There was agreement that the importance of self-care has increased markedly during the pandemic. The percentage of respondents who felt that self-care was 'very' important to their clients increased from 54.3% to 86.6% since the pandemic. Personal empowerment and capacity of service users to self-care increased significantly during the pandemic. Willingness of patients to engage (74%) and poor understanding of self-care (71%) were cited as the two main barriers to self-care. A close third was digital exclusion (71%), though 86% of respondents recommended online resources and 77% the use of smartphone apps. Survey respondents believed the changes to be permanent and positive. Interviewees reported a major, and positive move to self-care with the pandemic seen as an opportunity to be grasped, but professional education would have to be aligned to make the most of it. They raised concerns as to whether the shift to self-care was perceived by users as 'abandonment' rather than 'empowerment' and whether problems had been stored rather than dealt with through self-care and therefore whether the positive changes would continue after the pandemic. Conclusion: Reporting their views before the pandemic, barely more than half of the professionals surveyed saw self-care as fundamentally important to the individuals they served. This changed to 86% as a result of the pandemic. Patient/client engagement with and understanding of self-care were reported as major barriers, as was digital exclusion, though increased technological solutions were used by all respondents. Concerns were raised that the permanence of the changes depended upon continued encouragement and empowerment of individuals to self-care and on its inclusion in professional education as a substantive subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our ability to self-care can play a crucial role in the prevention, management and rehabilitation of diverse conditions, including chronic non-communicable diseases. Various tools have been developed to support the measurement of self-care capabilities of healthy individuals, those experiencing everyday self-limiting conditions, or one or more multiple long-term conditions. We sought to characterise the various non-mono-disease specific self-care measurement tools for adults as such a review was lacking. Objective: The aim of the review was to identify and characterise the various non-mono-disease specific self-care measurement tools for adults. Secondary objectives were to characterise these tools in terms of their content, structure and psychometric properties. Design: Scoping review with content assessment. Methods: The search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases using a variety of MeSH terms and keywords covering 1 January 1950 to 30 November 2022. Inclusion criteria included tools assessing health literacy, capability and/or performance of general health self-care practices and targeting adults. We excluded tools targeting self-care in the context of disease management only or indicated to a specific medical setting or theme. We used the Seven Pillars of Self-Care framework to inform the qualitative content assessment of each tool. Results: We screened 26,304 reports to identify 38 relevant tools which were described in 42 primary reference studies. Descriptive analysis highlighted a temporal shift in the overall emphasis from rehabilitation-focused to prevention-focused tools. The intended method of administration also transitioned from observe-and-interview style methods to the utilisation of self-reporting tools. Only five tools incorporated questions relevant to the seven pillars of self-care. Conclusions: Various tools exist to measure individual self-care capability, but few consider assessing capability against all seven pillars of self-care. There is a need to develop a comprehensive, validated tool and easily accessible tool to measure individual self-care capability including the assessment of a wide range of self-care practices. Such a tool could be used to inform targeted health and social care interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Geneva Declaration emerging from the 13th Geneva Conference on Person-Centred Medicine dealt with self-care, inter-care, and well-being during COVID-19 pandemic times. For the first time since the inception of the Geneva Conferences, the main theme involved self-care and inter-care. Not only these important healthcare strategies were innovative but also their specific relevance to person-centred care was implicitly assumed but had not been pointedly articulated. There has been significant literature available on self-care and only recently on inter-care, a concept sometimes referred to as mutual care. Objectives: The main objective of this paper is to examine systematically the place of self-care and mutual care within the framework of person-centred medicine (PCM) and thus help substantiate academically the main theme of the 2021 Geneva Declaration from the International College of Person-Centred Medicine. Methodology: The main approach involved an exploratory review of the literature aimed at clarifying the extent to which self-care and mutual care are related to the core concepts and to the key principles of PCM. Results: The relationship of the self-care and mutual care health strategies to the core concepts and key principles of PCM is tabularly appraised. It was found that both health strategies were related to the three core concepts of PCM and to virtually all key principles of PCM, except the holistic framework. Conclusions: Self-care and mutual care are related to and substantiated by the core concepts and key principles of PCM. The value of these findings could be extended through the identification and analyses of best practices and the performance of systematic research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines recommend that asthma treatment should be stepped down to the minimally effective dose that achieves symptom control to prevent medication side effects and reduce unnecessary costs. Little is known about the practice of stepping down and the challenges in primary care, where most asthma patients are managed. Objective: To explore views, experiences, barriers and ideas, of doctors, nurses and pharmacists working in primary care, related to step down of asthma medication. Methods: Primary care practitioners from across the UK participated in a survey and/or semi-structured interview. Questions explored four main areas: how asthma medication is reviewed, views on asthma guidelines, perceived barriers faced by healthcare workers and facilitators of stepping down. Qualitative content analysis enabled data coding of interview transcripts to identify major themes. Results: A total of 274 participants responded to the survey, 29 participated in an interview (12 doctors, 9 nurses, and 8 pharmacists), working in GP practices from across the UK. Nearly half of the survey participants infrequently step down asthma medication (doctors=42.7%, nurses=46.3%). Four major themes related to barriers to stepping down were (i) lack of awareness of the need to step down, (ii) inertia to step down, driven by low confidence in ability, fear of consequences, and concern for who is responsible for stepping down, (iii) self-efficacy of ability to step down, influenced by lack of clear, applied guidance and limited training, and (iv) feasibility of step down, driven by a lack of systematic acceptance of stepping down and time. Strategies proposed to reduce overtreatment included education and training, improved gathering of evidence and guidance, and integrating step down into routine asthma care. Conclusion: Failure to implement this guideline recommendation into everyday asthma management is influenced by several contributing factors. Future directions should include addressing evidence gaps, implementing clear and practical guidance, integration of step-down assessment into the asthma review, and education of professionals and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapidly increasing number of people who have long-term conditions requires a system of coordinated support for self-care throughout the NHS. A system to support self-care needs to be aligned to systems that support shared-care and community development, making it easier for the multidisciplinary teams who provide care to also help patients and populations to help themselves. Public health practitioners need to work closely with clinicians to achieve this. The best place to coordinate this partnership is a community-based coordinating hub, or local health community - a geographic area of about 50,000 population where different contributions to self-care can be aligned. A shared vision for both health and disease management is needed to ensure consistent messaging by all. A three tier system of shared care can help to combine vertical and horizontal integration. This paper uses severe and enduring mental illness as an exemplar to anticipate the design of such a system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine if use of point of care testing (POCT) is less costly than laboratory testing to the National Health Service (NHS) in delivering the NHS Health Check (NHSHC) programme in the primary care setting. Design Observational study and theoretical mathematical model with microcosting approach. Setting We collected data on NHSHC delivered at nine general practices (seven using POCT; two not using POCT). Participants We recruited nine general practices offering NHSHC and a pathology services laboratory in the same area. Methods We conducted mathematical modelling with permutations in the following fields: provider type (healthcare assistant or nurse), type of test performed (total cholesterol with either lab fasting glucose or HbA1c), cost of consumables and variable uptake rates, including rate of non-response to invite letter and rate of missed [did not attend (DNA)] appointments. We calculated total expected cost (TEC) per 100 invites, number of NHSHC conducted per 100 invites and costs for completed NHSHC for laboratory and POCT-based pathways. A univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for uncertainty in the input parameters. Main outcome measures We collected data on cost, volume and type of pathology services performed at seven general practices using POCT and a pathology services laboratory. We collected data on response to the NHSHC invitation letter and DNA rates from two general practices. Results TEC of using POCT to deliver a routine NHSHC is lower than the laboratory-led pathway with savings of £29 per 100 invited patients up the point of cardiovascular disease risk score presentation. Use of POCT can deliver NHSHC in one sitting, whereas the laboratory pathway offers patients several opportunities to DNA appointment. Conclusions TEC of using POCT to deliver an NHSHC in the primary care setting is lower than the laboratory-led pathway. Using POCT minimises DNA rates associated with laboratory testing and enables completion of NHSHC in one sitting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of patient-facing online symptom checkers (OSCs) has expanded in recent years, but their accuracy, safety, and impact on patient behaviors and health care systems remain unclear. The lack of a standardized process of clinical evaluation has resulted in significant variation in approaches to OSC validation and evaluation. The aim of this paper is to characterize a set of congruent requirements for a standardized vignette-based clinical evaluation process of OSCs. Discrepancies in the findings of comparative studies to date suggest that different steps in OSC evaluation methodology can significantly influence outcomes. A standardized process with a clear specification for vignette-based clinical evaluation is urgently needed to guide developers and facilitate the objective comparison of OSCs. We propose 15 recommendation requirements for an OSC evaluation standard. A third-party evaluation process and protocols for prospective real-world evidence studies should also be prioritized to quality assure OSC assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: PurposeTo develop and evaluate a model for the organ culture of human lens capsules that reduces problems inherent in preexisting models for the study of in vitro posterior capsule opacification (PCO).: MethodsHuman lenses (N = 110) were isolated from donor eyes and supported externally within a lens holder system by medical-grade cyanoacrylate glue, allowing visualization of the entire capsular bag. After capsulorhexis and lens extraction were performed, the capsule specimens were maintained at physiological conditions for up to 4 weeks. The area of lens epithelial cell (LEC) coverage over the posterior capsule surface was determined objectively on a daily basis using a graticule. Lens epithelial cell behavior was correlated with clinical data and other in vitro PCO models.: ResultsCyanoacrylate glue did not appear to be toxic to LECs at the concentration used. The amount of viable epithelium after nuclear extraction was dependent on the age and postmortem time of the specimen. Viable LEC cultures were obtained from eyes up to 9 days postmortem. The time from death to culture or from enucleation to culture did not influence LEC viability if it was fewer than 5 days. The LEC proliferation rates and confluence times were age dependent and correlated closely between pairs of eyes.: ConclusionsResults show that the lens holder model is a more physiological method for supporting the capsule and is a robust, reproducible system for the study of LEC migration and proliferation. It allows visualization within the entire capsular bag. Intraocular lenses can be implanted in this system in a way that more closely resembles the in vivo scenario. This model can be used to evaluate therapeutic measures to prevent PCO. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]