首页 > 最新文献

Health and social care delivery research最新文献

英文 中文
Team-based motivational engagement intervention in young people with first-episode psychosis: the EYE-2 cluster RCT with economic and process evaluation. 以团队为基础的青少年首发精神病动机参与干预:具有经济和过程评价的EYE-2集群随机对照试验
Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI: 10.3310/WDWG4102
Kathryn Greenwood, Christopher Iain Jones, Nahel Yaziji, Andy Healey, Carl May, Stephen Bremner, Richard Hooper, Shanaya Rathod, Peter Phiri, Richard de Visser, Tanya Mackay, Gergely Bartl, Iga Abramowicz, Jenny Gu, Rebecca Webb, Sunil Nandha, Belinda Lennox, Louise Johns, Paul French, Jo Hodgekins, Heather Law, James Plaistow, Rose Thompson, David Fowler, Philippa Garety, Anastacia O'Donnell, Michelle Painter, Rebecca Jarvis, Stuart Clark, Emmanuelle Peters

Background: Early Intervention in Psychosis services improves outcomes for young people with psychosis, but 25% disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health.

Objectives: To refine a toolkit and training and evaluate effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of the Early Youth Engagement-2 intervention to reduce disengagement.

Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and process evaluation.

Randomisation: Randomisation at team level stratified by site.

Masking: Research assistants, outcome assessors and statisticians were masked to treatment allocation for the primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Participants and teams administering the interventions were unmasked.

Setting: Twenty Early Intervention in Psychosis teams in five sites across England.

Participants: A total of 1027 young people (14-35 years) with first-episode psychosis (F20-29, 31; ICD-10); 20-282 Early Intervention in Psychosis staff.

Intervention: Team-based motivational engagement (Early Youth Engagement-2) intervention, delivered by Early Intervention in Psychosis clinicians alongside standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, supported by the implementation toolkit (training, website and booklet series).

Comparison: Standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines approved interventions.

Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - time to disengagement over 26 months (days from date of allocation to care co-ordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with service, or lack of response to contact for consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes - mental health, recovery, quality of life, service use, at 6 and 12 months. Economic outcomes - National Health Service mental healthcare costs, wider societal care costs, clinical and social outcomes over 12 months; cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation outcomes - fidelity to the Early Youth Engagement-2 model, implementation process scores, therapeutic alliance, qualitative outcomes.

Results: Disengagement was 16% across both arms. The multivariable Cox regression on 1005 participants estimated an adjusted hazard ratio for Early Youth Engagement-2 + standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis (n = 652) versus standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis service alone (n = 375) of 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.49; p = 0.713). There were no observed differences between arms for any secondary outcomes. The health economic evaluation indicated lower mean mental healthcare costs of -£788 (95% CI -£3571 to £1994) and marginally improved mental health states for intervention participants. Early Youth Engagement-2

背景:精神病服务的早期干预改善了年轻精神病患者的预后,但25%的人在前12个月内退出治疗,这对他们的精神健康造成了损失。目标:完善工具包和培训,并评估青少年早期参与-2干预的有效性、实施和成本效益,以减少脱离参与。设计:具有经济性和工艺评价的聚类随机对照试验。随机化:按地点分层的团队水平随机化。掩蔽:研究助理、结果评估员和统计学家对主要脱离接触和成本效益结果的治疗分配进行掩蔽。参与者和管理干预的团队都被揭开了面具。背景:20个精神病早期干预小组分布在英格兰的5个地点。参与者:共有1027名首发精神病的年轻人(14-35岁)(f20 - 29,31; ICD-10);20-282精神病早期干预工作人员。干预:以团队为基础的激励参与(早期青年参与-2)干预,由精神病早期干预临床医生提供,同时提供标准化的精神病早期干预,并得到实施工具包(培训,网站和小册子系列)的支持。比较:精神病的标准化早期干预,包括国家健康和护理卓越研究所指南批准的干预措施。主要结果指标:主要结果- 26个月内脱离接触的时间(从分配到护理协调员之日起至拒绝参与服务或连续3个月期间对联系缺乏回应后最后一次联系的天数)。次要结果——6个月和12个月时的心理健康、康复、生活质量、服务使用情况。经济成果——国民保健服务精神保健费用、更广泛的社会护理费用、12个月内的临床和社会结果;成本效益。过程评估结果-对早期青少年参与-2模型的忠实度,实施过程得分,治疗联盟,定性结果。结果:双臂的脱离率为16%。对1005名参与者的多变量Cox回归估计,早期青少年参与-2 +标准化精神病早期干预(n = 652)与单独的标准化精神病早期干预(n = 375)的调整风险比为1.07(95%置信区间0.76至1.49;p = 0.713)。没有观察到两组之间在任何次要结果上的差异。健康经济评估表明,干预参与者的平均心理保健费用降低了- 788英镑(95% CI - 3571英镑至1994英镑),心理健康状况略有改善。早期青年参与-2参与者每年在教育和培训上花费30多天(95% CI 1.52至53.68;干预的积极结果概率:99%),但这些结果必须非常谨慎地看待,因为只有22%的样本提供了数据。流程评估显示了不同的实现保真度和适应COVID-19广泛破坏的持续压力。对治疗联盟没有影响,最可能的积极改变机制是通过心理教育。局限性:脱离接触低于预期,后续工作损失大,COVID-19对保真度、实施和结果的影响。结论:在主要的临床有效性分析中,95%的置信限排除了早期青少年参与-2干预的脱离风险降低24%以上的可能性。在一项成本效益分析中,对早期青少年参与-2干预(降低成本,略微改善心理健康状况)占主导地位的估计有所下降。未来的工作:传播小册子和网站资源,并将该模型的改编版本作为独立工具,用于精神疾病护理的良好常规早期干预。研究注册:本研究注册号为ISRCTN 51629746。资助:该奖项由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目(NIHR奖励编号:16/31/87)资助,全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第13卷,第33号有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
{"title":"Team-based motivational engagement intervention in young people with first-episode psychosis: the EYE-2 cluster RCT with economic and process evaluation.","authors":"Kathryn Greenwood, Christopher Iain Jones, Nahel Yaziji, Andy Healey, Carl May, Stephen Bremner, Richard Hooper, Shanaya Rathod, Peter Phiri, Richard de Visser, Tanya Mackay, Gergely Bartl, Iga Abramowicz, Jenny Gu, Rebecca Webb, Sunil Nandha, Belinda Lennox, Louise Johns, Paul French, Jo Hodgekins, Heather Law, James Plaistow, Rose Thompson, David Fowler, Philippa Garety, Anastacia O'Donnell, Michelle Painter, Rebecca Jarvis, Stuart Clark, Emmanuelle Peters","doi":"10.3310/WDWG4102","DOIUrl":"10.3310/WDWG4102","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early Intervention in Psychosis services improves outcomes for young people with psychosis, but 25% disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To refine a toolkit and training and evaluate effectiveness, implementation, and cost-effectiveness of the Early Youth Engagement-2 intervention to reduce disengagement.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cluster randomised controlled trial with economic and process evaluation.</p><p><strong>Randomisation: </strong>Randomisation at team level stratified by site.</p><p><strong>Masking: </strong>Research assistants, outcome assessors and statisticians were masked to treatment allocation for the primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Participants and teams administering the interventions were unmasked.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Twenty Early Intervention in Psychosis teams in five sites across England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 1027 young people (14-35 years) with first-episode psychosis (F20-29, 31; ICD-10); 20-282 Early Intervention in Psychosis staff.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Team-based motivational engagement (Early Youth Engagement-2) intervention, delivered by Early Intervention in Psychosis clinicians alongside standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, supported by the implementation toolkit (training, website and booklet series).</p><p><strong>Comparison: </strong>Standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines approved interventions.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcome - time to disengagement over 26 months (days from date of allocation to care co-ordinator to date of last contact following refusal to engage with service, or lack of response to contact for consecutive 3-month period). Secondary outcomes - mental health, recovery, quality of life, service use, at 6 and 12 months. Economic outcomes - National Health Service mental healthcare costs, wider societal care costs, clinical and social outcomes over 12 months; cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation outcomes - fidelity to the Early Youth Engagement-2 model, implementation process scores, therapeutic alliance, qualitative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Disengagement was 16% across both arms. The multivariable Cox regression on 1005 participants estimated an adjusted hazard ratio for Early Youth Engagement-2 + standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis (<i>n</i> = 652) versus standardised Early Intervention in Psychosis service alone (<i>n</i> = 375) of 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.49; <i>p</i> = 0.713). There were no observed differences between arms for any secondary outcomes. The health economic evaluation indicated lower mean mental healthcare costs of -£788 (95% CI -£3571 to £1994) and marginally improved mental health states for intervention participants. Early Youth Engagement-2","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 33","pages":"1-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145067253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Identifying acceptable and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety: the MAP study. 确定可接受的和有效的方法评估围产期焦虑:MAP研究。
Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI: 10.3310/RRHD1124
Susan Ayers, Rose Meades, Andrea Sinesi, Helen Cheyne, Margaret Maxwell, Catherine Best, Julie Jomeen, James Walker, Judy Shakespeare, Fiona Alderdice
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anxiety is a common mental illness that can occur during and after pregnancy, which is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes for women and their infants. Despite this, there is no consensus on the best method of assessing anxiety.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The methods of assessing perinatal anxiety (MAP) study aimed to identify the most acceptable, effective and feasible method for assessing anxiety in pregnancy and after birth.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>The MAP study had four work packages: a qualitative and cognitive interview study (work package 1); a prospective longitudinal cohort study of women during pregnancy (early, mid- and late pregnancy) and post partum, with nested diagnostic interviews (work package 2) and implementation case studies (work package 3). Secondary analysis of cohort data was commissioned as an add-on project to examine the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on perinatal anxiety (work package 4). The MAP study evaluated four assessment measures based on clinical criteria and research evidence: the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, 2-item, or 7-item version scale, Whooley questions, Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version scale.</p><p><strong>Setting and participants: </strong>Qualitative and cognitive interviews (work package 1) were conducted with 41 pregnant and postpartum women, recruited through patient and public involvement representative organisations and social media. The MAP cohort (work package 2) included 2243 women recruited through 12 National Health Service Trusts in England and 5 National Health Service Boards in Scotland. Diagnostic interviews were conducted with a consecutive subsample of 403 participants. Implementation case studies (work package 3) were conducted with two National Health Service sites in England and one in Scotland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was acceptable to women and was viewed positively, although this was qualified by the extent to which the process was informed and personalised. Results from cognitive interviews found that all measures were acceptable and easy to use. Diagnostic accuracy was greatest for the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. Increased anxiety on all measures was associated with greater difficulties with daily living, poorer quality of life and participants wanting treatment. Early pregnancy (i.e. the first trimester) was the optimal time for identifying participants with anxiety disorders who wanted treatment. Two measures met criteria for implementation: the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale was preferred by stakeholders (41 women and 55 health professionals), so it was implemented. Acceptability to health professionals (
背景:焦虑是一种常见的精神疾病,可发生在怀孕期间和之后,这与妇女及其婴儿不良后果的风险增加有关。尽管如此,对于评估焦虑的最佳方法还没有达成共识。目的:研究围生期焦虑评估方法(MAP),旨在寻找最可接受、最有效、最可行的围生期焦虑评估方法。设计和方法:MAP研究有四个工作包:定性和认知访谈研究(工作包1);对怀孕期间(妊娠早期、中期和晚期)和产后妇女进行前瞻性纵向队列研究,采用嵌套式诊断访谈(工作包2)和实施案例研究(工作包3)。作为一个附加项目,委托对队列数据进行二次分析,以检查社会经济剥夺对围产期焦虑的影响(工作包4)。MAP研究基于临床标准和研究证据评估了四项评估措施:一般焦虑障碍问卷,2项或7项版本量表,Whooley问题,Stirling产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结果- 10项版本量表。环境和参与者:对41名孕妇和产后妇女进行定性和认知访谈(工作包1),这些妇女是通过患者和公众参与代表组织以及社交媒体招募的。MAP队列(工作包2)包括通过英格兰12个国家保健服务信托基金和苏格兰5个国家保健服务委员会招募的2243名妇女。诊断性访谈是对403名参与者的连续子样本进行的。在英格兰的两个国家保健服务站和苏格兰的一个国家保健服务站进行了实施案例研究(工作包3)。结果:围产期焦虑的常规评估对妇女来说是可以接受的,并被积极地看待,尽管这是由知情和个性化过程的程度所限定的。认知访谈结果表明,所有措施均可接受且易于使用。诊断准确性最高的是斯特林产前焦虑量表和临床结果在常规评估- 10项版本。在所有测量中,焦虑的增加与日常生活的更大困难、更差的生活质量和需要治疗的参与者有关。妊娠早期(即前三个月)是确定需要治疗的焦虑症参与者的最佳时间。两项措施符合实施标准:斯特林产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结果- 10项版本。利益相关者(41名妇女和55名保健专业人员)更喜欢斯特林产前焦虑量表,因此实施了该量表。卫生专业人员(N = 27)对使用Stirling产前焦虑量表进行常规评估的接受度较好。进行评估的潜在障碍为制定执行指南提供了信息。焦虑障碍患病率为19.9%(置信区间为16.1 ~ 24.1),其中妊娠早期患病率最高(25.5%,置信区间为17.4 ~ 35.1)。区域剥夺与围产期焦虑之间存在复杂的关系,其患病率的区域差异可以通过社会人口构成来解释。局限性:MAP队列比一般人群具有更大的种族多样性,但参与者受过高等教育。该研究评估了四种措施,因此无法确定其他措施是否更有效。定性和观察性研究设计意味着因果关系无法推断。结论:MAP研究发现,围产期焦虑的常规评估可被妇女接受,并且在国家卫生服务机构中实施是可行的。斯特林产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结果- 10项版本在识别需要治疗的围产期焦虑障碍妇女方面是最有效的。未来的工作:需要进一步的研究来确定实施围产期焦虑的常规评估是否会改善妇女和儿童的预后。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究方案资助的独立研究,奖励号为17/105/16。
{"title":"Identifying acceptable and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety: the MAP study.","authors":"Susan Ayers, Rose Meades, Andrea Sinesi, Helen Cheyne, Margaret Maxwell, Catherine Best, Julie Jomeen, James Walker, Judy Shakespeare, Fiona Alderdice","doi":"10.3310/RRHD1124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/RRHD1124","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Anxiety is a common mental illness that can occur during and after pregnancy, which is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes for women and their infants. Despite this, there is no consensus on the best method of assessing anxiety.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;The methods of assessing perinatal anxiety (MAP) study aimed to identify the most acceptable, effective and feasible method for assessing anxiety in pregnancy and after birth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design and methods: &lt;/strong&gt;The MAP study had four work packages: a qualitative and cognitive interview study (work package 1); a prospective longitudinal cohort study of women during pregnancy (early, mid- and late pregnancy) and post partum, with nested diagnostic interviews (work package 2) and implementation case studies (work package 3). Secondary analysis of cohort data was commissioned as an add-on project to examine the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on perinatal anxiety (work package 4). The MAP study evaluated four assessment measures based on clinical criteria and research evidence: the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, 2-item, or 7-item version scale, Whooley questions, Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version scale.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting and participants: &lt;/strong&gt;Qualitative and cognitive interviews (work package 1) were conducted with 41 pregnant and postpartum women, recruited through patient and public involvement representative organisations and social media. The MAP cohort (work package 2) included 2243 women recruited through 12 National Health Service Trusts in England and 5 National Health Service Boards in Scotland. Diagnostic interviews were conducted with a consecutive subsample of 403 participants. Implementation case studies (work package 3) were conducted with two National Health Service sites in England and one in Scotland.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was acceptable to women and was viewed positively, although this was qualified by the extent to which the process was informed and personalised. Results from cognitive interviews found that all measures were acceptable and easy to use. Diagnostic accuracy was greatest for the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. Increased anxiety on all measures was associated with greater difficulties with daily living, poorer quality of life and participants wanting treatment. Early pregnancy (i.e. the first trimester) was the optimal time for identifying participants with anxiety disorders who wanted treatment. Two measures met criteria for implementation: the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale was preferred by stakeholders (41 women and 55 health professionals), so it was implemented. Acceptability to health professionals (","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 32","pages":"1-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145071328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Optimising the delivery and impacts of interventions to improve hospital doctors' workplace wellbeing in the NHS: The Care Under Pressure 3 realist evaluation study. 优化交付和干预措施的影响,以提高医院医生的工作场所福利在NHS:护理压力下3现实评估研究。
Pub Date : 2025-08-01 DOI: 10.3310/PASQ1155
Daniele Carrieri, Alison Pearson, Anna Melvin, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Mark Pearson, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick
<p><strong>Background: </strong>The key role of medical workforce well-being in the delivery of excellent and equitable care is recognised internationally. However, doctors are known to experience significant mental ill health and erosion of their well-being due to challenging demands and pressurised work environments. Existing workplace support strategies often have limited effect and do not consider the multiple factors contributing to poor well-being in doctors (e.g. individual, organisational and social), nor whether interventions have been implemented effectively.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' workplace well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.</p><p><strong>Design and method: </strong>Three inter-related sequential phases of research activity: Phase 1: a typology of interventions and mapping tool to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being based on iterative cycles of analysis of published and in-practice interventions and informed by relevant theories and frameworks and engagement with stakeholders. Phase 2: realist evaluation consistent with Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality standards of existing strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being in eight purposively selected acute National Health Service trusts in England based on 124 interviews with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders. Phase 3: codeveloped implementation guidance for all National Health Service trusts to optimise their strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being - drawing on phases 1 and 2, and engagement with stakeholders in three online national workshops.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1: although many sources did not clarify their underlying assumptions about causal pathways or the theoretical basis of interventions, we were able to develop a typology and mapping tool which can be used to conceptualise interventions by type (e.g. whether they are designed to be largely preventative or 'curative'). Phase 2: key findings from our realist interviews were that: (1) solutions needed to align with problems to support doctor's well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) involving doctors in creating solutions was important to address their well-being problems; (3) doctors often do not know what well-being support is available and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support. Phase 3: our 'Workplace well-being MythBuster's guide' provides constructive evidence-based implementation guidance, while authentically representing the predominantly negative experiences reported in phase 2.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Although we sampled for diversity, the eight trusts we worked with may not be representative of all trusts in England.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Misaligned
背景:医疗工作者的福祉在提供优质和公平的护理方面的关键作用是国际公认的。然而,众所周知,由于挑战性的要求和压力重重的工作环境,医生会经历严重的精神疾病和幸福感的侵蚀。现有的工作场所支持策略往往效果有限,而且没有考虑到导致医生幸福感低下的多重因素(例如个人、组织和社会),也没有考虑到干预措施是否得到了有效实施。目的:与不同的医院环境合作,并从中学习,以了解如何优化策略,提高医生的工作场所幸福感,减少对劳动力和患者护理的负面影响。设计和方法:研究活动的三个相互关联的连续阶段:第一阶段:基于对已发表和实践中的干预措施的反复分析周期,并根据相关理论和框架以及与利益相关者的接触,制定干预措施类型和绘图工具,以改善医院医生的工作场所福祉。阶段2:与现实主义和元叙事证据综合相一致的现实主义评估:不断发展的标准:根据对医生、福祉干预实现者/实践者和领导者的124次访谈,在英国8个有目的地选择的国家卫生服务信托机构中,改善医院医生工作场所福祉的现有战略的质量标准。第三阶段:根据第一阶段和第二阶段的经验,共同为所有国民保健服务信托机构制定实施指南,以优化其战略,改善医院医生的工作场所福利,并在三个在线全国讲习班中与利益攸关方接触。结果:第一阶段:尽管许多来源没有阐明其关于因果途径或干预措施理论基础的潜在假设,但我们能够开发一种类型学和绘图工具,可用于按类型对干预措施进行概念化(例如,它们的设计是主要用于预防还是“治疗”)。第二阶段:我们现实主义访谈的主要发现是:(1)解决方案需要与问题保持一致,以支持医生的福祉并避免对医生造成伤害;(2)让医生参与制定解决方案对解决他们的健康问题很重要;(3)医生往往不知道什么是可获得的幸福支持;(4)在获得幸福支持方面存在身体和心理障碍。第三阶段:我们的“职场幸福神话终结者指南”提供了建设性的基于证据的实施指导,同时真实地代表了第二阶段报告的主要负面经历。局限性:虽然我们取样的多样性,我们工作的八个信托可能不能代表所有的信托在英格兰。结论:不一致的幸福感解决方案会造成伤害。最重要的是优先改善工作环境,而不是福祉的“附加条件”,并让医生和其他相关人员参与识别问题并规划如何解决这些问题。未来的工作:需要进一步的研究,使研究结果适合初级保健、心理健康和社会保健环境。迫切需要对福祉干预措施进行卫生经济学研究(理想情况下是在系统一级),因为小额投资可能产生深远的积极影响。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR132931。
{"title":"Optimising the delivery and impacts of interventions to improve hospital doctors' workplace wellbeing in the NHS: The Care Under Pressure 3 realist evaluation study.","authors":"Daniele Carrieri, Alison Pearson, Anna Melvin, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Mark Pearson, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick","doi":"10.3310/PASQ1155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PASQ1155","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;The key role of medical workforce well-being in the delivery of excellent and equitable care is recognised internationally. However, doctors are known to experience significant mental ill health and erosion of their well-being due to challenging demands and pressurised work environments. Existing workplace support strategies often have limited effect and do not consider the multiple factors contributing to poor well-being in doctors (e.g. individual, organisational and social), nor whether interventions have been implemented effectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aim: &lt;/strong&gt;To work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' workplace well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design and method: &lt;/strong&gt;Three inter-related sequential phases of research activity: Phase 1: a typology of interventions and mapping tool to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being based on iterative cycles of analysis of published and in-practice interventions and informed by relevant theories and frameworks and engagement with stakeholders. Phase 2: realist evaluation consistent with Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality standards of existing strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being in eight purposively selected acute National Health Service trusts in England based on 124 interviews with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders. Phase 3: codeveloped implementation guidance for all National Health Service trusts to optimise their strategies to improve hospital doctors' workplace well-being - drawing on phases 1 and 2, and engagement with stakeholders in three online national workshops.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Phase 1: although many sources did not clarify their underlying assumptions about causal pathways or the theoretical basis of interventions, we were able to develop a typology and mapping tool which can be used to conceptualise interventions by type (e.g. whether they are designed to be largely preventative or 'curative'). Phase 2: key findings from our realist interviews were that: (1) solutions needed to align with problems to support doctor's well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) involving doctors in creating solutions was important to address their well-being problems; (3) doctors often do not know what well-being support is available and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support. Phase 3: our 'Workplace well-being MythBuster's guide' provides constructive evidence-based implementation guidance, while authentically representing the predominantly negative experiences reported in phase 2.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/strong&gt;Although we sampled for diversity, the eight trusts we worked with may not be representative of all trusts in England.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Misaligned ","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 30","pages":"1-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144985381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Meeting the needs of women in the perinatal period, who use or are in treatment for using drugs: A mixed-methods systematic review. 满足正在使用或正在接受药物治疗的围产期妇女的需要:一项混合方法的系统评价。
Pub Date : 2025-08-01 DOI: 10.3310/GJPR0321
Emma Smith, Shirley Lewis, Lynne Gilmour, Louise Honeybul, Helen Cheyne, Narendra Aladangady, Brigid Featherstone, Margaret Maxwell, Joanne Neale, Mariana Gonzalez Utrilla, Polly Radcliffe
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Women who use and/or are in treatment for using drugs during the perinatal period have complex health and social care needs. Substance use in the perinatal period is multifaceted, with many confounding factors that may impact the long-term health and well-being of both mothers and children. Evidence is needed to identify which psychosocial interventions are effective for women who use and/or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period.</p><p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>(1) Describe the range of psychosocial interventions available for women who use and/or are in treatment for drugs in the perinatal period; (2) to document evidence on the effectiveness of interventions and (3) identify interventions that women feel most meet their needs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted following a predetermined protocol and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for mixed-methods systematic reviews, adopting a segregated approach.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Eight databases were searched for articles meeting the inclusion criteria on 7 April 2022, and updated searches were run on 5 February 2024. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed articles published after 1990 and available in English. In total, 15,655 articles were identified. Following screening by four reviewers by title and abstract and then full text, 197 articles were included in the review. A data extraction template was used to extract study characteristics and results. Quality was assessed using the mixed-methods Quality Appraisal Tool. Cohen's <i>d</i> was used to measure the effect size for quantitative data to understand if an intervention had a small (> 0.2), medium (> 0.5) or large effect (> 0.8). Effectiveness was measured through three outcomes: (1) improvements and engagement with and retention in substance use treatment services for women in the prenatal and postnatal period; (2) reductions in substance use by women in the perinatal period and (3) improvements in engagement with and retention in prenatal care. For qualitative data, articles were grouped by the intervention type and the authors' analytical themes and conclusions were thematically synthesised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 197 included studies described 217 separate interventions. Most interventions (85.3%) were community-based, delivered in more than one way (49.3%), and delivered in single settings (50.6%), although some were colocated alongside other services (22.1%). No conclusive evidence for effectiveness was established for any type of intervention, although most interventions that improved retention in substance use services included practical support. The qualitative synthesis supported these findings and additionally suggested that women appreciated being able to access multiple services in one place: non-judgemental, trauma-informed services and peer-support models.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </stro
背景:围产期使用药物和(或)正在接受药物治疗的妇女有复杂的健康和社会护理需求。围产期药物使用是多方面的,有许多混杂因素可能影响母亲和儿童的长期健康和福祉。需要证据来确定哪些社会心理干预措施对围产期使用和/或正在接受药物治疗的妇女有效。目标:(1)描述在围产期使用药物和/或正在接受药物治疗的妇女可获得的社会心理干预措施的范围;(2)记录干预措施有效性的证据;(3)确定妇女认为最能满足其需求的干预措施。设计:采用分离的方法,按照预先确定的方案和Joanna Briggs研究所的混合方法系统评价指南进行混合方法系统评价。综述方法:于2022年4月7日在8个数据库中检索符合纳入标准的文章,并于2024年2月5日进行更新检索。搜索仅限于1990年以后发表的同行评议的英文文章。共鉴定15,655件物品。经4位审稿人按标题、摘要、全文筛选,共纳入197篇论文。数据提取模板用于提取研究特征和结果。使用混合方法质量评价工具评估质量。采用Cohen’s d来衡量定量数据的效应大小,以了解干预是小(> .2)、中(> .5)还是大(> .8)。通过三个结果来衡量有效性:(1)产前和产后妇女药物使用治疗服务的改善、参与和保留;(2)减少围产期妇女的药物使用;(3)改善产前护理的参与和保留。对于定性数据,文章按干预类型分组,作者的分析主题和结论按主题综合。结果:纳入的197项研究描述了217项单独的干预措施。大多数干预措施(85.3%)以社区为基础,以多种方式提供(49.3%),并在单一环境中提供(50.6%),尽管有些干预措施与其他服务同时提供(22.1%)。没有确定任何类型干预措施有效性的确凿证据,尽管大多数改善药物使用服务保留的干预措施包括实际支持。定性综合支持了这些发现,并进一步表明,妇女赞赏能够在一个地方获得多种服务:非评判性的、了解创伤的服务和同伴支持模式。局限性:在一些研究中,与年龄相关的报告信息类型存在很大差异,限制了我们通过定量分析评估有效性的能力。定性分析同样有限,因为并非所有确定的定性文件都包括妇女对所接受治疗的看法。结论:包括实际支持的干预措施在定量和定性研究结果中都更为有效。在定量和定性数据中,也有一些证据表明综合多学科干预措施的有效性和可行性。未来的工作:有必要对使用和/或正在接受药物治疗的孕妇进行最新的、高质量的干预研究。在未来的研究中考虑女性的声音也很重要。资助:本文介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR130619。
{"title":"Meeting the needs of women in the perinatal period, who use or are in treatment for using drugs: A mixed-methods systematic review.","authors":"Emma Smith, Shirley Lewis, Lynne Gilmour, Louise Honeybul, Helen Cheyne, Narendra Aladangady, Brigid Featherstone, Margaret Maxwell, Joanne Neale, Mariana Gonzalez Utrilla, Polly Radcliffe","doi":"10.3310/GJPR0321","DOIUrl":"10.3310/GJPR0321","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Women who use and/or are in treatment for using drugs during the perinatal period have complex health and social care needs. Substance use in the perinatal period is multifaceted, with many confounding factors that may impact the long-term health and well-being of both mothers and children. Evidence is needed to identify which psychosocial interventions are effective for women who use and/or are in treatment for drug use during the perinatal period.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective(s): &lt;/strong&gt;(1) Describe the range of psychosocial interventions available for women who use and/or are in treatment for drugs in the perinatal period; (2) to document evidence on the effectiveness of interventions and (3) identify interventions that women feel most meet their needs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted following a predetermined protocol and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for mixed-methods systematic reviews, adopting a segregated approach.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Eight databases were searched for articles meeting the inclusion criteria on 7 April 2022, and updated searches were run on 5 February 2024. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed articles published after 1990 and available in English. In total, 15,655 articles were identified. Following screening by four reviewers by title and abstract and then full text, 197 articles were included in the review. A data extraction template was used to extract study characteristics and results. Quality was assessed using the mixed-methods Quality Appraisal Tool. Cohen's &lt;i&gt;d&lt;/i&gt; was used to measure the effect size for quantitative data to understand if an intervention had a small (&gt; 0.2), medium (&gt; 0.5) or large effect (&gt; 0.8). Effectiveness was measured through three outcomes: (1) improvements and engagement with and retention in substance use treatment services for women in the prenatal and postnatal period; (2) reductions in substance use by women in the perinatal period and (3) improvements in engagement with and retention in prenatal care. For qualitative data, articles were grouped by the intervention type and the authors' analytical themes and conclusions were thematically synthesised.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;The 197 included studies described 217 separate interventions. Most interventions (85.3%) were community-based, delivered in more than one way (49.3%), and delivered in single settings (50.6%), although some were colocated alongside other services (22.1%). No conclusive evidence for effectiveness was established for any type of intervention, although most interventions that improved retention in substance use services included practical support. The qualitative synthesis supported these findings and additionally suggested that women appreciated being able to access multiple services in one place: non-judgemental, trauma-informed services and peer-support models.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/stro","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144985393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluation of the NHS England Low-Calorie Diet implementation pilot: a coproduced mixed-method study. 英国国家医疗服务体系低热量饮食实施试点评估:一项联合生产的混合方法研究。
Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/MPRT2139
Louisa J Ells, Tamara Brown, Jamie Matu, Ken Clare, Simon Rowlands, Maria Maynard, Karina Kinsella, Kevin Drew, Jordan R Marwood, Pooja Dhir, Tamla S Evans, Maria Bryant, Wendy Burton, Duncan Radley, Jim McKenna, Catherine Homer, Adam Martin, Davide Tebaldi, Tayamika Zabula, Stuart W Flint, Chris Keyworth, Mick Marston, Tanefa Apekey, Janet E Cade, Chirag Bakhai

Background: National Health Service England piloted a low-calorie diet programme, delivered through total diet replacement and behaviour change support via 1 : 1, group or digital delivery, to improve type 2 diabetes in adults with excess weight.

Aim: To coproduce a qualitative and economic evaluation of the National Health Service low-calorie diet pilot, integrated with National Health Service data to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost-effectiveness, implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations.

Research questions: What are the theoretical principles, behaviour change components, content and mode of delivery of the programme, and is it delivered with fidelity to National Health Service specifications? What are the service provider, user and National Health Service staff experiences of the programme? Do sociodemographics influence programme access, uptake, compliance and success? What aspects of the service work and what do not work, for whom, in what context and why? Can the programme be improved to enhance patient experience and address inequities? What are the programme delivery costs, and policy implications for wide-spread adoption?

Methods: A mixed-methods study underpinned by a realist-informed approach was delivered across five work packages, involving: semistructured interviews with service users (n = 67), National Health Service staff (n = 55), service providers (n = 9); 13 service provider focus groups; and service user surveys (n = 719). Findings were triangulated with clinical data from the National Health Service England's first cohort analysis (n = 7540).

Results: Fifty-five per cent of service users who started total diet replacement completed the programme and lost an average of 10.3 kg; 32% of those with data available to measure remission achieved it. Examination of programme mobilisation identified barriers around referral equality and the impact of COVID-19, while effective cross-stakeholder working and communication were key facilitators. Service delivery and fidelity assessments identified a drift in implementation fidelity, alongside variation in the behaviour change content across providers. Perceived barriers to programme uptake and engagement aligned across service providers and users, resulting in key learning on: the importance of person-centred care, service user support needs, improvements to total diet replacement and the social and cultural impact of the programme. Early National Health Service quantitative analyses suggest some socioeconomic variation in programme uptake, completion and outcomes. Insights from the evaluation and National Health Service data were combined to develop the programme theory and underpinning context, mechanisms and outcomes. These were used to develop a list of recommendations to improv

背景:英国国家卫生服务试行了一项低热量饮食计划,通过1:1的整体饮食替代和行为改变支持,团体或数字交付,以改善超重成人的2型糖尿病。目的:结合国家卫生服务数据,共同对国家卫生服务低热量饮食试点进行定性和经济评估,以加强对广泛和不同人群的长期成本效益、实施、公平性和可转移性的了解。研究问题:该方案的理论原则、行为改变的组成部分、内容和实施方式是什么?该方案的实施是否忠实于国家卫生服务规范?服务提供者、使用者和国民保健服务工作人员对该方案的体验如何?社会人口统计学是否会影响项目的获取、吸收、遵守和成功?服务的哪些方面起作用,哪些方面不起作用,为谁服务,在什么情况下,为什么?能否改进该规划以改善患者体验并解决不公平问题?项目实施成本是多少?对广泛采用的政策影响是什么?方法:通过五个工作包开展了一项以现实主义者知情方法为基础的混合方法研究,涉及:对服务用户(n = 67)、国家卫生服务工作人员(n = 55)、服务提供者(n = 9)的半结构化访谈;13个服务提供者焦点小组;服务用户调查(n = 719)。研究结果与英国国民健康服务首次队列分析(n = 7540)的临床数据进行了三角测量。结果:55%开始全面饮食替代的服务使用者完成了计划,平均减掉10.3公斤;有可用数据衡量缓解的人中有32%达到了这一目标。对方案动员的审查发现了围绕转诊平等和COVID-19影响的障碍,而有效的跨利益攸关方工作和沟通是关键的促进因素。服务交付和保真度评估确定了实施保真度的漂移,以及提供商之间行为变化内容的变化。在服务提供者和用户之间,对方案吸收和参与的感知障碍是一致的,从而产生了以下方面的关键学习:以人为本的护理的重要性、服务用户支持需求、全面替代饮食的改进以及方案的社会和文化影响。早期的国民保健服务定量分析表明,在方案的吸收、完成和结果方面存在一些社会经济差异。从评估和国民保健服务数据中获得的见解结合起来,形成了方案理论和基础背景、机制和结果。这些数据被用来制定一份建议清单,以提高项目实施、全面饮食替代实施、同伴支持和解决心理支持需求的文化能力。利用短期后续数据进行的成本效益分析表明,该方案有可能具有成本效益,但不能节省费用。结论:国民健康服务低热量饮食可以提供一种临床有效且具有潜在成本效益的方案,以支持2型糖尿病成人减肥和血糖控制。但是,这次评价确定了在转诊公平、接受和完成以及执行的准确性方面有待改进的领域,这些方面为方案的制定提供了信息,目前已在全国推广。现在需要进行不断的方案监测和长期后续行动。未来的工作和限制:现实世界的环境限制了一些数据的收集和分析。未来的工作将侧重于分析长期临床和成本效益,并解决不平等问题。资助:本文介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR132075。
{"title":"Evaluation of the NHS England Low-Calorie Diet implementation pilot: a coproduced mixed-method study.","authors":"Louisa J Ells, Tamara Brown, Jamie Matu, Ken Clare, Simon Rowlands, Maria Maynard, Karina Kinsella, Kevin Drew, Jordan R Marwood, Pooja Dhir, Tamla S Evans, Maria Bryant, Wendy Burton, Duncan Radley, Jim McKenna, Catherine Homer, Adam Martin, Davide Tebaldi, Tayamika Zabula, Stuart W Flint, Chris Keyworth, Mick Marston, Tanefa Apekey, Janet E Cade, Chirag Bakhai","doi":"10.3310/MPRT2139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MPRT2139","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>National Health Service England piloted a low-calorie diet programme, delivered through total diet replacement and behaviour change support via 1 : 1, group or digital delivery, to improve type 2 diabetes in adults with excess weight.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To coproduce a qualitative and economic evaluation of the National Health Service low-calorie diet pilot, integrated with National Health Service data to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost-effectiveness, implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations.</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>What are the theoretical principles, behaviour change components, content and mode of delivery of the programme, and is it delivered with fidelity to National Health Service specifications? What are the service provider, user and National Health Service staff experiences of the programme? Do sociodemographics influence programme access, uptake, compliance and success? What aspects of the service work and what do not work, for whom, in what context and why? Can the programme be improved to enhance patient experience and address inequities? What are the programme delivery costs, and policy implications for wide-spread adoption?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study underpinned by a realist-informed approach was delivered across five work packages, involving: semistructured interviews with service users (<i>n</i> = 67), National Health Service staff (<i>n</i> = 55), service providers (<i>n</i> = 9); 13 service provider focus groups; and service user surveys (<i>n</i> = 719). Findings were triangulated with clinical data from the National Health Service England's first cohort analysis (<i>n</i> = 7540).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five per cent of service users who started total diet replacement completed the programme and lost an average of 10.3 kg; 32% of those with data available to measure remission achieved it. Examination of programme mobilisation identified barriers around referral equality and the impact of COVID-19, while effective cross-stakeholder working and communication were key facilitators. Service delivery and fidelity assessments identified a drift in implementation fidelity, alongside variation in the behaviour change content across providers. Perceived barriers to programme uptake and engagement aligned across service providers and users, resulting in key learning on: the importance of person-centred care, service user support needs, improvements to total diet replacement and the social and cultural impact of the programme. Early National Health Service quantitative analyses suggest some socioeconomic variation in programme uptake, completion and outcomes. Insights from the evaluation and National Health Service data were combined to develop the programme theory and underpinning context, mechanisms and outcomes. These were used to develop a list of recommendations to improv","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 29","pages":"1-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144769532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Implementation of link workers in primary care: Synopsis of findings from a realist evaluation. 链接工作者在初级保健中的实施:现实主义评估的结果摘要。
Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/KHGT9993
Stephanie Tierney, Geoff Wong, Debra Westlake, Amadea Turk, Steven Markham, Jordan Gorenberg, Joanne Reeve, Caroline Mitchell, Kerryn Husk, Sabi Redwood, Tony Meacock, Catherine Pope, Beccy Baird, Kamal Mahtani
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social prescribing link workers formed part of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme introduced into primary care in England from 2019. Link workers assist patients experiencing issues affecting their health and well-being that are 'non-medical' (e.g. lack of social connections, financial difficulties and housing problems). They give patients space to consider these non-medical issues and, when relevant, connect them to support, often within the voluntary-community-social-enterprise sector. We conducted an earlier realist review on the link worker role in primary care. We then carried out a realist evaluation, described in this report, to address the question: When implementing link workers in primary care to sustain outcomes - what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop evidence-based recommendations to optimise the implementation of link workers in primary care and to enable patients to receive the best support possible.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A realist evaluation, involving two work packages.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Data were collected around seven link workers in different parts of England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For work package 1, researchers spent 3 weeks with each link worker - going to meetings with them, watching them interact with patients, with healthcare professionals and with voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff. During this time, researchers had a daily debrief with the link worker, inviting them to reflect on their working day, and they collected relevant documents (e.g. job descriptions and information on social prescribing given to patients). They also conducted interviews with 93 primary care/voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff and 61 patients. As part of this work package, data on patient contact with a general practitioner before and after being referred to a link worker were collected. Work package 2 consisted of follow-up interviews (9-12 months later) with patients; 41 were reinterviewed. In addition, link workers were reinterviewed. A realist logic of analysis was used to test (confirm, refute or refine) the programme theory we developed from our realist review. Analysis explored connections between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to explain how, why and in what circumstances the implementation of link workers might be beneficial (or not) to patients and/or healthcare delivery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We produced three papers from the research - one on link workers 'holding' patients, one on the role of discretion in their job, and another exploring patient-focused data and readiness to engage in social prescribing. Data from these papers were considered in relation to Normalisation Process Theory - a framework for conceptualising the implementation of new interventions into practice (e.g. link workers into primary care). By doing so, we identified infrastructural factors required to help l
背景:自2019年起,社会处方环节工作人员构成了英格兰初级保健引入的额外角色报销计划的一部分。Link工作人员帮助遇到影响其健康和福祉的“非医疗”问题的患者(例如缺乏社会联系、经济困难和住房问题)。它们为患者提供了考虑这些非医疗问题的空间,并在相关情况下将他们与支持联系起来,通常是在自愿-社区-社会-企业部门。我们进行了一项较早的现实主义回顾在初级保健环节工作者的作用。然后,我们进行了本报告所述的现实主义评估,以解决以下问题:在初级保健中实施链接工作者以维持结果时-什么有效,对谁有效,为什么有效,在什么情况下有效?目的:制定基于证据的建议,以优化在初级保健环节工作人员的实施,并使患者能够获得尽可能最好的支持。设计:一个现实的评估,包括两个工作包。环境:数据是在英格兰不同地区的7名铁路工人周围收集的。方法:对于工作包1,研究人员花了3周时间与每个环节工作人员一起参加会议,观察他们与患者、卫生保健专业人员和志愿社区-社会-企业工作人员的互动。在此期间,研究人员每天与链接工作者进行汇报,邀请他们反思他们的工作日,并收集相关文件(例如工作描述和给患者的社会处方信息)。他们还采访了93名初级保健/志愿社区-社会-企业工作人员和61名病人。作为该工作包的一部分,收集了患者转介给链接工作者之前和之后与全科医生接触的数据。工作包2包括对患者的随访访谈(9-12个月后);41人再次接受了采访。此外,对链接工人进行了重新访谈。现实主义的分析逻辑被用来检验(证实、反驳或完善)我们从现实主义的回顾中发展出来的纲领理论。分析探讨了上下文、机制和结果之间的联系,以解释链接工作者的实施如何、为什么以及在什么情况下可能对患者和/或医疗保健服务有益(或无益)。结果:我们从研究中产生了三篇论文——一篇是关于联系工作者“抱着”病人,一篇是关于他们工作中的判断力的作用,另一篇是关于以病人为中心的数据和参与社会处方的准备情况。这些论文中的数据被认为与正常化过程理论有关-一个将新干预措施的实施概念化到实践中的框架(例如将工人与初级保健联系起来)。通过这样做,我们确定了帮助工人联系所需的基础设施因素:(1)提供以人为本的护理;(2)培养患者的自信心、希望感和社会资本;(3)促进全科医生的适当使用;(4)提高社会处方施药人员的工作满意度。讨论:我们的研究强调了支持性基础设施的重要性(包括监督、培训、领导/管理、明确角色、联系工人使用现有技能和知识的能力以及与自愿-社区-社会-企业部门的提供者建立联系的能力),以便提供以人为本的护理,在患者中培养希望、自信和社会资本,确保他们得到正确的支持(医疗或非医疗)。并促进环节工人的工作满意度。数据显示,医疗工作者可以为提供超越纯医学视角的健康和疾病的整体护理做出贡献。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR130247。
{"title":"Implementation of link workers in primary care: Synopsis of findings from a realist evaluation.","authors":"Stephanie Tierney, Geoff Wong, Debra Westlake, Amadea Turk, Steven Markham, Jordan Gorenberg, Joanne Reeve, Caroline Mitchell, Kerryn Husk, Sabi Redwood, Tony Meacock, Catherine Pope, Beccy Baird, Kamal Mahtani","doi":"10.3310/KHGT9993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/KHGT9993","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Social prescribing link workers formed part of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme introduced into primary care in England from 2019. Link workers assist patients experiencing issues affecting their health and well-being that are 'non-medical' (e.g. lack of social connections, financial difficulties and housing problems). They give patients space to consider these non-medical issues and, when relevant, connect them to support, often within the voluntary-community-social-enterprise sector. We conducted an earlier realist review on the link worker role in primary care. We then carried out a realist evaluation, described in this report, to address the question: When implementing link workers in primary care to sustain outcomes - what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Aim: &lt;/strong&gt;To develop evidence-based recommendations to optimise the implementation of link workers in primary care and to enable patients to receive the best support possible.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;A realist evaluation, involving two work packages.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting: &lt;/strong&gt;Data were collected around seven link workers in different parts of England.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;For work package 1, researchers spent 3 weeks with each link worker - going to meetings with them, watching them interact with patients, with healthcare professionals and with voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff. During this time, researchers had a daily debrief with the link worker, inviting them to reflect on their working day, and they collected relevant documents (e.g. job descriptions and information on social prescribing given to patients). They also conducted interviews with 93 primary care/voluntary-community-social-enterprise staff and 61 patients. As part of this work package, data on patient contact with a general practitioner before and after being referred to a link worker were collected. Work package 2 consisted of follow-up interviews (9-12 months later) with patients; 41 were reinterviewed. In addition, link workers were reinterviewed. A realist logic of analysis was used to test (confirm, refute or refine) the programme theory we developed from our realist review. Analysis explored connections between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to explain how, why and in what circumstances the implementation of link workers might be beneficial (or not) to patients and/or healthcare delivery.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;We produced three papers from the research - one on link workers 'holding' patients, one on the role of discretion in their job, and another exploring patient-focused data and readiness to engage in social prescribing. Data from these papers were considered in relation to Normalisation Process Theory - a framework for conceptualising the implementation of new interventions into practice (e.g. link workers into primary care). By doing so, we identified infrastructural factors required to help l","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 27","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144786269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of workforce configurations in English acute hospitals. 后果,成本和成本效益的劳动力配置在英国急症医院。
Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/ZBAR9152
Peter Griffiths, Christina Saville, Jane Ball, David Culliford, Jeremy Jones, Francesca Lambert, Paul Meredith, Bruna Rubbo, Lesley Turner, Chiara Dall'Ora
<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Health Service faces significant challenges in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. Recruiting unregistered staff is often adopted as a solution to the registered nurse shortage, but recent research found lower registered nurse staffing levels increase hospital mortality with no evidence that higher levels of assistant staff reduced risk.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of variation in the size and composition of the staff on acute hospital wards in England. To determine if results are likely to be sensitive to staff groups such as doctors and therapists, who are not on ward rosters, associations between staffing and outcomes for multiple staff groups, including medical, are explored at hospital level.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A national cross-sectional panel study and a patient-level longitudinal observational study using routine data.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>All English acute hospital Trusts and a subsample of four Trusts for the patient-level study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Naturally occurring variation in the size and composition of the workforce.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients experiencing a hospital admission with an overnight stay and nursing staff providing care on inpatient wards.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Death, patient and staff experience, length of stay, re-admission, adverse events, incidents (Datix), staff sickness, costs and quality-adjusted life-years.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Publicly available records of hospital activity, staffing and outcomes (cross-sectional study) and hospital administrative systems (longitudinal study).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the cross-sectional study, lower staffing levels from doctors and allied health professionals were associated with increased risk of death. Higher nurse staffing levels were associated with better patient experience and staff well-being. In the longitudinal study, for adult inpatients, exposure to days with lower-than-expected registered nurses or nursing assistant staff was associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08/1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.09/1.06 to 1.08) and longer hospital stays. Low registered nurse staffing was also associated with increased hazard of re-admission (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.02). Eliminating low staffing cost £2778 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoidance of registered nurse understaffing gave more benefits and was more cost-effective for highly acute patients. Although high bank or agency staffing was associated with increased hazard of death, avoiding low staffing using temporary staff still reduced mortality but was more costly and less effective than using permanent staff. If costs of avoided hospital stays are included, avoiding low staffing generates a net cost saving. Exploration of thr
背景:国民保健服务在招聘和留住注册护士方面面临着重大挑战。招聘未注册的工作人员通常被用来解决注册护士短缺的问题,但最近的研究发现,注册护士人数较少会增加医院死亡率,没有证据表明助理工作人员人数较多会降低风险。目的:估计后果,成本和成本效益变化的规模和组成的工作人员在英国急性医院病房。为了确定结果是否可能对医生和治疗师等不在病区名册上的工作人员群体敏感,在医院一级探讨了包括医务人员在内的多个工作人员群体的人员配备与结果之间的关系。设计:一项全国横断面小组研究和一项使用常规数据的患者水平纵向观察研究。背景:所有英国急性医院信托和四家信托的子样本进行患者水平的研究。干预措施:劳动力规模和构成的自然变化。参与者:住院过夜的患者和在住院病房提供护理的护理人员。结果:死亡、病人和工作人员经验、住院时间、再入院、不良事件、事件(Datix)、工作人员疾病、费用和质量调整生命年。数据来源:医院活动、人员配备和结果的公开记录(横断面研究)和医院管理系统(纵向研究)。结果:在横断面研究中,较低的医生和专职卫生专业人员配备水平与死亡风险增加有关。较高的护士配备水平与更好的患者体验和员工幸福感相关。在纵向研究中,对于成年住院患者,暴露于低于预期的注册护士或护理助理人员的天数与死亡风险增加(调整风险比1.08/1.07,95%置信区间1.07至1.09/1.06至1.08)和住院时间延长相关。低注册护士配置也与再入院风险增加相关(调整风险比1.01,95%可信区间1.01 ~ 1.02)。消除低人力成本为每增加质量调整寿命年2778英镑。避免注册护士人手不足给了更多的好处,更符合成本效益的高度急性患者。虽然银行或机构人员配置过多与死亡危险增加有关,但使用临时工作人员避免人员配置过少仍然可以降低死亡率,但与使用长期工作人员相比,成本更高,效果更差。如果包括避免住院的费用,避免人员配备不足可产生净成本节约。对低人员配备阈值的探索表明,注册护士配备高于当前规范的有益效果更大。局限性:这是一项观察性研究。不能孤立地从这些结果中作出因果推论。虽然结论对假设或贴现率不敏感,但对质量调整后的寿命年收益进行了估计。我们以目前的病房标准作为编制不足的参考。结论:我们的研究结果显示了低护士配备的不利影响,但也表明医疗和联合卫生专业人员配备是患者安全的重要考虑因素。减少注册护士人数比减少助理人数带来更多的好处。未来工作:确定护理人员配备需求的方法有待研究验证,注册护士与助理人员配备之间的相互作用有待进一步探索。研究注册:本研究注册为Current Controlled Trials ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04374812。资助:该奖项由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR128056)资助,全文发表在《卫生和社会保健提供研究》上;第13卷,第25号有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
{"title":"Consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of workforce configurations in English acute hospitals.","authors":"Peter Griffiths, Christina Saville, Jane Ball, David Culliford, Jeremy Jones, Francesca Lambert, Paul Meredith, Bruna Rubbo, Lesley Turner, Chiara Dall'Ora","doi":"10.3310/ZBAR9152","DOIUrl":"10.3310/ZBAR9152","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;The National Health Service faces significant challenges in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. Recruiting unregistered staff is often adopted as a solution to the registered nurse shortage, but recent research found lower registered nurse staffing levels increase hospital mortality with no evidence that higher levels of assistant staff reduced risk.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To estimate the consequences, costs and cost-effectiveness of variation in the size and composition of the staff on acute hospital wards in England. To determine if results are likely to be sensitive to staff groups such as doctors and therapists, who are not on ward rosters, associations between staffing and outcomes for multiple staff groups, including medical, are explored at hospital level.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;A national cross-sectional panel study and a patient-level longitudinal observational study using routine data.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting: &lt;/strong&gt;All English acute hospital Trusts and a subsample of four Trusts for the patient-level study.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interventions: &lt;/strong&gt;Naturally occurring variation in the size and composition of the workforce.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Participants: &lt;/strong&gt;Patients experiencing a hospital admission with an overnight stay and nursing staff providing care on inpatient wards.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Death, patient and staff experience, length of stay, re-admission, adverse events, incidents (Datix), staff sickness, costs and quality-adjusted life-years.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data sources: &lt;/strong&gt;Publicly available records of hospital activity, staffing and outcomes (cross-sectional study) and hospital administrative systems (longitudinal study).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;In the cross-sectional study, lower staffing levels from doctors and allied health professionals were associated with increased risk of death. Higher nurse staffing levels were associated with better patient experience and staff well-being. In the longitudinal study, for adult inpatients, exposure to days with lower-than-expected registered nurses or nursing assistant staff was associated with increased hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08/1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.09/1.06 to 1.08) and longer hospital stays. Low registered nurse staffing was also associated with increased hazard of re-admission (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.02). Eliminating low staffing cost £2778 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoidance of registered nurse understaffing gave more benefits and was more cost-effective for highly acute patients. Although high bank or agency staffing was associated with increased hazard of death, avoiding low staffing using temporary staff still reduced mortality but was more costly and less effective than using permanent staff. If costs of avoided hospital stays are included, avoiding low staffing generates a net cost saving. Exploration of thr","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 25","pages":"1-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144577550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Understanding patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units: a longitudinal retrospective service evaluation in the UK. 了解患者途径到母婴单位:纵向回顾性服务评估在英国。
Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/GDVS2427
Nikolina Jovanović, Žan Lep, Giles Berrisford, Aysegul Dirik, Julia Barber, Bukola Kelani, Olivia Protti

Background: Mother and Baby Units are specialised psychiatric facilities for women during and after pregnancy. In the United Kingdom, efforts have been made to expand the Mother and Baby Unit availability and establish care guidelines. However, the accessibility of these services for ethnic minority women remains relatively unexplored despite well-documented disparities.

Aims: To explore patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units in three UK localities, with a focus on variations in pathways between services and among ethnic groups.

Methods: This is a three-site, longitudinal retrospective service evaluation conducted in Birmingham, London and Nottingham during a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2019). Electronic records were accessed to extract data on the type of admission, the referral process and the type of pathway (simple or complex). The simple pathway entailed contact with one clinician/service prior to admission to the Mother and Baby Unit, while the complex pathway involved interactions with two or more clinicians/services before Mother and Baby Unit admission. Data were collected using the adapted World Health Organization Encounter form and were analysed using uni- and multivariable analyses.

Results: Electronic records from 198 patients were analysed, with participants distributed proportionally across three sites: Birmingham (n = 70, 35.4%), London (n = 62, 31.3%) and Nottingham (n = 66, 33.3%). All Mother and Baby Units were nationally commissioned and received referrals from across England. Most patients were in the post partum period, admitted for the first time through emergency, informal and complex pathways. The average length of admission was 6 weeks. Significant differences in admission characteristics were observed between services. Patients of Asian ethnicity had more emergency admissions compared to those of Black and White ethnicities. Ethnicity was the only significant factor associated with the simple/complex care pathway. After controlling for pathway-level and patient-level factors, Black patients were 6.24 times less likely to experience a complex care pathway than White patients. No evidence was found that patients from the Black ethnic background are detained more often than White patients.

Limitations: The heterogeneity among categorised ethnic groups, data extracted solely from electronic records without validation through patients' personal accounts of their care pathways, unanalysed declined referrals and the utilisation of pre-COVID-19 pandemic data. The ethnic composition of the study sample matched that of the UK maternity population in the Nottingham subsample, but Black and Asian populations were over-represented in the Birmingham and London subsamples.

Conclusion: The study provides valuable insights into patient journeys to Mother and Baby Units

背景:母婴病房是专门为怀孕期间和怀孕后的妇女提供的精神科设施。在联合王国,已作出努力扩大母婴室的供应并制定护理准则。然而,少数民族妇女获得这些服务的机会仍然相对未被探索,尽管有充分的证据表明存在差异。目的:探索英国三个地区母婴单位的患者路径,重点关注服务之间和种族群体之间路径的变化。方法:这是一项为期12个月(2019年1月1日至12月31日)在伯明翰、伦敦和诺丁汉进行的三点纵向回顾性服务评估。获取电子记录以提取有关入院类型、转诊过程和途径类型(简单或复杂)的数据。简单的途径需要在进入母婴病房之前与一名临床医生/服务机构接触,而复杂的途径需要在母婴病房入院之前与两名或更多的临床医生/服务机构互动。数据收集使用世界卫生组织(World Health Organization)改编的偶遇表,并使用单变量和多变量分析进行分析。结果:分析了198名患者的电子记录,参与者按比例分布在三个地点:伯明翰(n = 70, 35.4%),伦敦(n = 62, 31.3%)和诺丁汉(n = 66, 33.3%)。所有母婴单位都是全国委托的,并收到了来自英格兰各地的推荐。大多数病人是在产后,通过紧急、非正式和复杂的途径第一次入院。平均住院时间为6周。不同服务的入院特征有显著差异。与黑人和白人患者相比,亚裔患者有更多的急诊入院。种族是与简单/复杂护理途径相关的唯一显著因素。在控制通路水平和患者水平因素后,黑人患者经历复杂护理通路的可能性比白人患者低6.24倍。没有证据表明黑人患者比白人患者更容易被拘留。局限性:分类的族裔群体之间存在异质性,数据仅从电子记录中提取,未通过患者对其护理途径的个人描述进行验证,未分析被拒绝的转诊以及使用covid -19大流行前的数据。研究样本的种族组成与诺丁汉子样本中的英国产妇人口相匹配,但伯明翰和伦敦子样本中黑人和亚洲人口的比例过高。结论:该研究提供了宝贵的见解,病人的旅程到母婴单位,突出了服务之间的显著差异。它还强调了种族在护理途径中的作用。例如,黑人患者在母婴病房入院前不太可能遇到两种以上的服务,这表明要么更直接地获得专科护理,要么缺乏社区干预。这种双重解释需要未来的研究来探索种族之间的途径差异是由最佳临床决策还是护理提供的差距造成的。未来的工作:应该进一步研究种族在塑造护理途径中的作用;探讨护理途径类型与治疗结果之间的联系;调查是否简单或复杂的途径是由最佳临床决策或医疗保健系统的差距造成的,并探讨普通病房与母婴病房的入院情况以及这些单位之间的过渡。资助:本文介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究方案资助的独立研究,奖励号为17/105/14。
{"title":"Understanding patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units: a longitudinal retrospective service evaluation in the UK.","authors":"Nikolina Jovanović, Žan Lep, Giles Berrisford, Aysegul Dirik, Julia Barber, Bukola Kelani, Olivia Protti","doi":"10.3310/GDVS2427","DOIUrl":"10.3310/GDVS2427","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mother and Baby Units are specialised psychiatric facilities for women during and after pregnancy. In the United Kingdom, efforts have been made to expand the Mother and Baby Unit availability and establish care guidelines. However, the accessibility of these services for ethnic minority women remains relatively unexplored despite well-documented disparities.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore patient pathways to Mother and Baby Units in three UK localities, with a focus on variations in pathways between services and among ethnic groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a three-site, longitudinal retrospective service evaluation conducted in Birmingham, London and Nottingham during a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2019). Electronic records were accessed to extract data on the type of admission, the referral process and the type of pathway (simple or complex). The simple pathway entailed contact with one clinician/service prior to admission to the Mother and Baby Unit, while the complex pathway involved interactions with two or more clinicians/services before Mother and Baby Unit admission. Data were collected using the adapted World Health Organization Encounter form and were analysed using uni- and multivariable analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Electronic records from 198 patients were analysed, with participants distributed proportionally across three sites: Birmingham (<i>n</i> = 70, 35.4%), London (<i>n</i> = 62, 31.3%) and Nottingham (<i>n</i> = 66, 33.3%). All Mother and Baby Units were nationally commissioned and received referrals from across England. Most patients were in the post partum period, admitted for the first time through emergency, informal and complex pathways. The average length of admission was 6 weeks. Significant differences in admission characteristics were observed between services. Patients of Asian ethnicity had more emergency admissions compared to those of Black and White ethnicities. Ethnicity was the only significant factor associated with the simple/complex care pathway. After controlling for pathway-level and patient-level factors, Black patients were 6.24 times less likely to experience a complex care pathway than White patients. No evidence was found that patients from the Black ethnic background are detained more often than White patients.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The heterogeneity among categorised ethnic groups, data extracted solely from electronic records without validation through patients' personal accounts of their care pathways, unanalysed declined referrals and the utilisation of pre-COVID-19 pandemic data. The ethnic composition of the study sample matched that of the UK maternity population in the Nottingham subsample, but Black and Asian populations were over-represented in the Birmingham and London subsamples.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study provides valuable insights into patient journeys to Mother and Baby Units","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144669253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a scoping review of definitions, types, and impact on outcomes. 专业化医疗服务的集中化:定义、类型和对结果影响的范围审查。
Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/REMD6648
Angus Ig Ramsay, Sonila M Tomini, Saheli Gandhi, Naomi J Fulop, Stephen Morris
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Centralising specialised healthcare services into high-volume centres is proposed to improve patient outcomes and efficiency. Most reviews focus on relatively few conditions and a limited range of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review the evidence on centralisation of a range of specialised acute services, to analyse (1) how centralisations are defined; (2) how centralisations are organised and delivered; and (3) the relationship between centralisation and several key outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review, conducted in November 2020.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Specialised acute healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Centralisation of services into a reduced number of high-volume units.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We included 93 papers covering specialised emergency and elective acute healthcare services, published to November 2020. Definitions of centralisation commonly lacked detail, but, where available, covered centralisation's form, objectives, mechanisms and drivers. We proposed a typology of four forms of centralisation, reflecting the number and functions of specialist units (centralisation of whole pathway, centralisation of pathway components, hierarchy of specialist units, partial centralisation). For most outcomes, the majority of papers suggested a positive impact of centralisation: mortality (33/55 papers), survival (19/25), morbidity (17/27), quality of life (6/7), quality of care (22/30), length of stay (17/26), cost-effectiveness (3/3) and patient experience (3/3). Centralisation was associated with increased patient travel (9/12); 3/5 papers suggested no impact on inequalities.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This review was conducted in November 2020 and did not include grey literature or studies that did not analyse outcomes, so more recent and further evidence - for example, on types of centralisation model and how centralisation was implemented - may exist. As this was a scoping review, we did not conduct a quality assessment, which may reduce the confidence with which we may view the presented impacts of centralisation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Centralisation is commonly associated with improved care and outcomes. However, research seldom describes centralised services in sufficient detail, rarely compares different service models and tends to focus on a narrow range of outcomes. Therefore, understanding the extent and nature of centralisation's impact - and the mechanisms by which it is achieved - remains elusive. By addressing these gaps, future research may of greater use to all stakeholders with an interest in centralisation.</p><p><strong>Future research: </strong>Should provide clearer descriptions of centralisations, compare different centralisation models and study a wider range of important outcomes, including patient experience and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents i
背景:建议将专业医疗保健服务集中到高容量中心,以改善患者的预后和效率。大多数审查只关注相对较少的条件和有限的结果范围。目的:回顾一系列专业急症服务集中的证据,分析(1)如何定义集中;(2)如何组织和执行中央集权;(3)中央集权与几个关键结果之间的关系。设计:范围审查,于2020年11月进行。环境:专门的急症医疗服务。干预措施:将服务集中到数量减少的大容量单元中。研究结果:我们纳入了截至2020年11月发表的93篇涉及专业急诊和选择性急性医疗保健服务的论文。中央集权的定义通常缺乏细节,但是,如果有的话,涵盖了中央集权的形式、目标、机制和驱动因素。我们提出了四种集中化形式的类型学,反映了专家单位的数量和功能(整个路径的集中化,路径组件的集中化,专家单位的层次结构,部分集中化)。对于大多数结局,大多数论文认为集中化有积极的影响:死亡率(33/55篇论文)、生存率(19/25篇)、发病率(17/27篇)、生活质量(6/7篇)、护理质量(22/30篇)、住院时间(17/26篇)、成本效益(3/3篇)和患者体验(3/3篇)。集中化与患者旅行增加有关(9/12);3/5的论文认为对不平等没有影响。局限性:本综述于2020年11月进行,不包括灰色文献或未分析结果的研究,因此可能存在更近期和进一步的证据,例如,关于集中化模式的类型以及如何实施集中化。由于这是一项范围审查,我们没有进行质量评估,这可能会降低我们对集中化所带来的影响的信心。结论:集中化通常与改善的护理和结果相关。然而,研究很少足够详细地描述集中式服务,很少比较不同的服务模式,并且倾向于关注狭窄范围的结果。因此,理解中央集权影响的程度和性质——以及实现这种影响的机制——仍然是难以捉摸的。通过解决这些差距,未来的研究可能对所有对中央集权感兴趣的利益相关者都有更大的用处。未来的研究:应该提供更清晰的集中化描述,比较不同的集中化模式,研究更广泛的重要结果,包括患者经验和成本效益。资助:本文介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究项目资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR133613。
{"title":"Centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a scoping review of definitions, types, and impact on outcomes.","authors":"Angus Ig Ramsay, Sonila M Tomini, Saheli Gandhi, Naomi J Fulop, Stephen Morris","doi":"10.3310/REMD6648","DOIUrl":"10.3310/REMD6648","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Centralising specialised healthcare services into high-volume centres is proposed to improve patient outcomes and efficiency. Most reviews focus on relatively few conditions and a limited range of outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To review the evidence on centralisation of a range of specialised acute services, to analyse (1) how centralisations are defined; (2) how centralisations are organised and delivered; and (3) the relationship between centralisation and several key outcomes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;Scoping review, conducted in November 2020.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Setting: &lt;/strong&gt;Specialised acute healthcare services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intervention: &lt;/strong&gt;Centralisation of services into a reduced number of high-volume units.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Findings: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 93 papers covering specialised emergency and elective acute healthcare services, published to November 2020. Definitions of centralisation commonly lacked detail, but, where available, covered centralisation's form, objectives, mechanisms and drivers. We proposed a typology of four forms of centralisation, reflecting the number and functions of specialist units (centralisation of whole pathway, centralisation of pathway components, hierarchy of specialist units, partial centralisation). For most outcomes, the majority of papers suggested a positive impact of centralisation: mortality (33/55 papers), survival (19/25), morbidity (17/27), quality of life (6/7), quality of care (22/30), length of stay (17/26), cost-effectiveness (3/3) and patient experience (3/3). Centralisation was associated with increased patient travel (9/12); 3/5 papers suggested no impact on inequalities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/strong&gt;This review was conducted in November 2020 and did not include grey literature or studies that did not analyse outcomes, so more recent and further evidence - for example, on types of centralisation model and how centralisation was implemented - may exist. As this was a scoping review, we did not conduct a quality assessment, which may reduce the confidence with which we may view the presented impacts of centralisation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;Centralisation is commonly associated with improved care and outcomes. However, research seldom describes centralised services in sufficient detail, rarely compares different service models and tends to focus on a narrow range of outcomes. Therefore, understanding the extent and nature of centralisation's impact - and the mechanisms by which it is achieved - remains elusive. By addressing these gaps, future research may of greater use to all stakeholders with an interest in centralisation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Future research: &lt;/strong&gt;Should provide clearer descriptions of centralisations, compare different centralisation models and study a wider range of important outcomes, including patient experience and cost-effectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Funding: &lt;/strong&gt;This article presents i","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144762971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A digital intervention to improve mental health and interpersonal resilience for young people who have experienced online sexual abuse: the i-Minds non-randomised feasibility clinical trial and nested qualitative study. 数字干预改善经历过网络性虐待的年轻人的心理健康和人际恢复能力:i-Minds非随机可行性临床试验和嵌套定性研究。
Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/THAL8732
Sandra Bucci, Filippo Varese, Ethel Quayle, Kim Cartwright, Amanda Larkin, Cindy Chan, Prathiba Chitsabesan, Victoria Green, William Hewins, Matthew Machin, Alice Newton, Erica Niebauer, John Norrie, Gillian Radford, Cathy Richards, Marina Sandys, Victoria Selby, Sara Shafi, Jennifer Ward, Pauline Whelan, Matthias Schwannauer

Background: No evidence-based support for young people who have experienced technology-assisted sexual abuse exists. The project's aims were to develop a digital intervention that improves mentalisation (the ability to understand the minds of oneself and others that underlies behaviour) to reduce the risk for revictimisation and future harm and improve young people's resilience.

Objectives: To co-design a mentalisation-based digital intervention; determine its feasibility, acceptability, safety and usability; and determine how to best integrate this into practice.

Methods: A mixed-methods, non-randomised study in young people aged 12-18 years exposed to technology-assisted sexual abuse across two United Kingdom sites. We adapted an existing mentalisation-based therapy manual and co-designed a digital health intervention (app) using participatory methods. Recommendations from our pre-trial qualitative work with healthcare professionals supporting young people with technology-assisted sexual abuse and lived experience consultation informed app development and trial procedures. The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the digital intervention measured against relevant fields of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for feasibility studies. Intervention safety was reported against an adverse events procedure. Usability was guided by the framework for analysing and measuring usage and engagement data in digital interventions. Acceptability was examined using qualitative methods. The planned sample size of the feasibility clinical trial was 60 young people.

Results: Between May 2022 and March 2023, 147 young people were screened for eligibility for the feasibility clinical trial; 72 referrals were made and 43 young people were allocated to receive the intervention. We found that it was possible to recruit and retain participants to this trial. Quantitative and qualitative data showed that the i-Minds app was safe, acceptable and associated with promising signals of efficacy on valuable outcomes post treatment, including technology-assisted-sexual-abuse-related post-traumatic symptoms, resilience, internalising symptoms and reflective functioning. Most participants accessed or completed app modules. User feedback indicated that participants had a positive experience using the app, positively increasing their knowledge/understanding of their own mental health and their motivation to address their mental health difficulties. Practitioners identified the barriers to implementing i-Minds into routine practice as not being involved in its design at the outset, possible impact on workload and whether digital health interventions might replace routine care. Facilitators included the distinct nature and specificity of the i-Minds app for the target group and its ability to support young people on service waiting lists.

背景:对于经历过技术辅助性侵犯的年轻人,没有证据支持。该项目的目标是开发一种数字干预手段,提高心理化(理解自己和他人行为背后的心理的能力),以减少再次受害和未来伤害的风险,提高年轻人的适应能力。目的:共同设计一种基于心理的数字干预;确定其可行性、可接受性、安全性和可用性;并确定如何最好地将其整合到实践中。方法:一项混合方法,非随机研究,在英国两个地点的12-18岁暴露于技术辅助性虐待的年轻人中进行。我们改编了现有的基于心理的治疗手册,并使用参与式方法共同设计了数字健康干预(app)。我们与医疗保健专业人员进行的试验前定性工作提出的建议为应用程序开发和试验程序提供了信息,这些建议支持技术辅助性虐待和生活经验咨询的年轻人。主要结果是提供数字干预的可行性和可接受性,根据可行性研究报告试验综合标准声明的相关领域进行衡量。对不良事件程序的干预安全性进行了报告。可用性以分析和衡量数字干预中的使用和参与数据的框架为指导。采用定性方法检验可接受性。可行性临床试验的计划样本量为60名年轻人。结果:2022年5月至2023年3月期间,147名年轻人被筛选为可行性临床试验的资格;共转介72人,43名年轻人获分配接受干预。我们发现招募并留住参与者是可能的。定量和定性数据表明,i-Minds应用程序是安全的、可接受的,并且在治疗后的有价值的结果方面,包括技术辅助性虐待相关的创伤后症状、复原力、内化症状和反思功能,与有希望的疗效信号相关。大多数参与者访问或完成了应用程序模块。用户反馈表明,参与者在使用该应用程序时获得了积极的体验,积极地增加了他们对自己心理健康的认识/理解,以及他们解决心理健康问题的动力。从业人员指出,在日常实践中实施i-Minds的障碍包括:一开始就没有参与其设计,可能对工作量产生影响,以及数字健康干预措施是否可能取代常规护理。促成因素包括i-Minds应用程序针对目标群体的独特性质和特殊性,以及它为服务等候名单上的年轻人提供支持的能力。局限性:样本中的种族多样性有限,反映了在转诊点潜在的选择偏差。性取向在试验中没有被提及。该试验缺乏随机化和对照组,限制了对治疗后改善的解释。结论:基于心理状态的数字化干预是可行、可接受和安全的。看来有必要进行更大规模的评估。需要进一步改善服务,对遭受技术辅助性虐待的年轻人进行例行评估和提供支持。未来的工作:可以探索更多的问题,包括评估在线危害的培训材料,制定评估和应对在线危害的指南,验证评估在线危害的措施,进一步了解数字健康干预措施在临床护理途径中的适用范围,招募更多样化的样本,并进一步区分在线危害的形式及其后果。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)卫生和社会保健提供研究计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR131848。
{"title":"A digital intervention to improve mental health and interpersonal resilience for young people who have experienced online sexual abuse: the i-Minds non-randomised feasibility clinical trial and nested qualitative study.","authors":"Sandra Bucci, Filippo Varese, Ethel Quayle, Kim Cartwright, Amanda Larkin, Cindy Chan, Prathiba Chitsabesan, Victoria Green, William Hewins, Matthew Machin, Alice Newton, Erica Niebauer, John Norrie, Gillian Radford, Cathy Richards, Marina Sandys, Victoria Selby, Sara Shafi, Jennifer Ward, Pauline Whelan, Matthias Schwannauer","doi":"10.3310/THAL8732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/THAL8732","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No evidence-based support for young people who have experienced technology-assisted sexual abuse exists. The project's aims were to develop a digital intervention that improves mentalisation (the ability to understand the minds of oneself and others that underlies behaviour) to reduce the risk for revictimisation and future harm and improve young people's resilience.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To co-design a mentalisation-based digital intervention; determine its feasibility, acceptability, safety and usability; and determine how to best integrate this into practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods, non-randomised study in young people aged 12-18 years exposed to technology-assisted sexual abuse across two United Kingdom sites. We adapted an existing mentalisation-based therapy manual and co-designed a digital health intervention (app) using participatory methods. Recommendations from our pre-trial qualitative work with healthcare professionals supporting young people with technology-assisted sexual abuse and lived experience consultation informed app development and trial procedures. The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the digital intervention measured against relevant fields of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for feasibility studies. Intervention safety was reported against an adverse events procedure. Usability was guided by the framework for analysing and measuring usage and engagement data in digital interventions. Acceptability was examined using qualitative methods. The planned sample size of the feasibility clinical trial was 60 young people.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between May 2022 and March 2023, 147 young people were screened for eligibility for the feasibility clinical trial; 72 referrals were made and 43 young people were allocated to receive the intervention. We found that it was possible to recruit and retain participants to this trial. Quantitative and qualitative data showed that the i-Minds app was safe, acceptable and associated with promising signals of efficacy on valuable outcomes post treatment, including technology-assisted-sexual-abuse-related post-traumatic symptoms, resilience, internalising symptoms and reflective functioning. Most participants accessed or completed app modules. User feedback indicated that participants had a positive experience using the app, positively increasing their knowledge/understanding of their own mental health and their motivation to address their mental health difficulties. Practitioners identified the barriers to implementing i-Minds into routine practice as not being involved in its design at the outset, possible impact on workload and whether digital health interventions might replace routine care. Facilitators included the distinct nature and specificity of the i-Minds app for the target group and its ability to support young people on service waiting lists.</p><p","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"13 28","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144777559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Health and social care delivery research
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1