Health Expectations最新文献

Background

Effective communication is central to safe, high-quality primary care. For Bangladeshi communities in the United Kingdom (UK), linguistic barriers continue to impede access to timely and culturally sensitive healthcare. This study describes an early phase of the co-production pathway of the tool seeking to understand the contextual acceptability of an AI-enabled translation tool designed for general practice, with functionality to capture symptoms, clinical problems, across diverse Bangladeshi dialects and provide guidance on next steps.

Methods

We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with a sample of Bangladeshi patients from South Birmingham, UK to understand their attitudes towards using the AmarDoctor translation tool. The data were analysed using a directed content analysis to populate Sekhon's theoretical framework of acceptability.

Results

Seven participants, all native Bengali speakers, were recruited. AmarDoctor was viewed positively for supporting appointment booking, guiding appropriate next steps, and offering a safe, anonymous means of discussing sensitive concerns. Noted strengths were its ability to capture symptoms in multiple Bengali dialects and its ease of use by those with limited digital literacy. The most frequently shared concern centred on the potential for translation inaccuracies and the subsequent risks.

Conclusions

Participants expressed optimism about the role of AmarDoctor and similar AI-enabled translation tools in improving access to primary care. To gain wider acceptance, AmarDoctor must maximise the next steps of the co-production process that includes staff and commissioners to ensure translation accuracy meets the needs of all users and that credible pathways for implementation at scale are developed.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients and the public have been involved from the beginning of the AmarDoctor initiative, contributing to the design and content of patient facing materials, and informing the content of our topic guide.

Introduction

This study aimed to explore the emotional and cognitive perceptions of cervical cancer screening (CCS), with a focus on self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) by vulnerable Romanian women.

Methodology

Eighteen semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with vulnerable women, defined by their low socioeconomic status (SES), residence in rural areas and membership in ethnic minorities. Participants were recruited using snowball sampling. Interviews followed a guide designed to assess constructs from the Health Belief Model (knowledge, barriers, evaluation of vulnerability) as they relate to women's views of prevention, the healthcare system and CCS. A Think Aloud protocol was used with a subsample of six women to identify potential barriers, opportunities and attitudes related to the use of self-sampling kits. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to identify the primary themes related to with women's perceptions of CCS and self-sampling.

Results

Four major themes emerged: (a) risk, fear and other emotional experiences; (b) women's perception of barriers; (c) knowledge, personal control and cues to action; and (d) women's perception of self-sampling. Participants unravelled emotional and logistical barriers to CCS and self-sampling. Limited health literacy, fear and shame influenced risk perceptions, hindering CCS participation. Logistical challenges and financial constraints further impeded access, while women often prioritized the needs of their families over their own health. The Think Aloud protocol revealed that initial concerns regarding self-sampling could be alleviated by having clear instructions, highlighting the importance of support during the decision-making process.

Conclusion

This study identified diverse barriers preventing vulnerable Romanian women from engaging in CCS, including logistical challenges, financial constraints and emotional factors.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the study.

Introduction

Iran is vulnerable to natural disasters, especially earthquakes. Frequent earthquakes in the Khoy city and followed by the devastating Van earthquake in Turkey, caused panic among the people and forced them to settle in camps. So, this study aims to explore lived experiences of people affected by the Khoy earthquake from living in temporary camps.

Methods

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted using conventional content analysis method and purposive sampling in health centers, with 24 people affected by the earthquake in Khoy city. After obtaining written informed consent, interviews were recorded and continued until data saturation was reached. Data were analyzed using MAXQDA version 12 software.

Results

From the analysis of qualitative data, two themes were extracted: “Disruption of the normal life routine” and “life reconsideration.” The three subcategories of the first them included “difficult life events,” “disruption of social life routine,” and “crisis mismanagement,” and the three themes of life reconsideration included “struggling to adapt to harsh conditions,” “changes in perceived life priorities,” and “enhancing spiritual well-being.”

Conclusion

Living in temporary camps disrupted survivors' daily lives and intensified feelings of injustice and distrust due to poor crisis management. Yet, many reevaluated their life priorities and found strength in spiritual beliefs. These findings underscore the need for policymakers to implement timely, equitable, and participatory programs that support both material and psychosocial recovery.

Patient or Public Contribution

Individuals who had experienced the earthquake participated in the interviews. Their lived experiences were analyzed, and the findings of the study were subsequently reviewed and validated by the participants themselves to ensure accuracy and resonance with their perspectives.

Introduction

While there is a growing emphasis on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) within maternal and neonatal research, there is a lack of evidence on how PPI is currently implemented. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to gain insight into stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of PPI in maternal and neonatal trials.

Methods

CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Maternity and Infant Care (OVID) were searched from inception dates to September 2023, supplemented by a search of Google Scholar. Eligibility screening and quality appraisal of each included record were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Data extracted from the included records were thematically synthesised using Thomas and Harden's approach.

Results

Nine records were identified as eligible and included in the review. Three themes were generated from the synthesis, each with two or three subthemes. The main themes were ‘building a successful PPI partnership’, ‘impact of PPI on trial design and development’, and ‘impact of PPI on stakeholders’. Of 15 discrete findings, 1 was assessed as having high confidence, 11 as moderate and 3 were assessed as having low confidence.

Conclusion

Researchers who facilitated PPI described it as a positive and enjoyable experience that improved trial design and considered PPI as an asset to research. However, there was a lack of information available on PPI contributors' first-hand perspectives or experiences, which considerably limits our understanding of their opinions on how PPI is currently conducted.

Protocol Registration: The protocol for this qualitative evidence synthesis was registered on PROSPERO (PROSPERO registration number CRD42023383878).