General practitioners (GPs) are key to the frontline assessment and treatment of young people after self-harm. Young people value GP-led self-harm care, but little is known about how GPs manage young people after self-harm.
This study aimed to understand the approaches of GPs to self-harm in young people and explore their perspectives on ways they might help young people avoid repeat self-harm.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with GPs from the National Health Service in England in 2021. GPs were recruited from four geographically spread clinical research networks and a professional special interest group. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The study's patient and public involvement and community of practice groups supported participant recruitment and data analysis.
Fifteen interviews were undertaken with a mean age of participants being 41 years and a breadth of experience in practice ranging from 1 to 22 years. Four themes were generated: GPs' understanding of self-harm; approaches to managing self-harm; impact of COVID-19 on consultations about self-harm; and ways to avoid future self-harm.
Negative attitudes towards self-harm within clinical settings are well documented, but GPs said they took self-harm seriously, listened to young people, sought specialist support when concerned and described appropriate ways to help young people avoid self-harm. GPs felt that relationship-based care is an important element of self-harm care but feared remote consultations for self-harm may impede on this. There is a need for brief GP-led interventions to reduce repeat self-harm in young people.
A study advisory group consisting of young people aged 16–25 years with personal experience of self-harm and parents and carers of young people who have self-harmed designed the recruitment poster of this study, informed its topic guide and contributed to its findings.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a public health emergency (PHE) of unprecedented magnitude and impact. It provided the possibility to investigate the Dutch citizens' understanding and perception of the actors involved in the Dutch pandemic response as a PHE unfolded.
Three focus groups (FGs) were held with 16 Dutch citizens in June 2020. Citizens were recruited using the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel. During the FGs, participants were asked to fill in a table with actors they thought were involved in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. They also received information on actors involved in Dutch outbreak responses. Then, the actors named and omitted by the participants were discussed.
An analysis of the FGs suggests that the Dutch citizens participating in the study were not fully aware of the scope of actors involved in the Dutch COVID-19 pandemic response. Some participants would have appreciated more information on the actors involved. This would help them have an informed opinion of the actors involved in the decision-making process, and accept non-pharmaceutical interventions implemented. Lastly, most participants recognised that they played a role in limiting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, very few spontaneously mentioned themselves as actors within the COVID-19 pandemic response.
This study suggests that early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch citizens participating in this study's FG did not have a complete understanding of the scope of actors involved in the Dutch COVID-19 pandemic response, or the potential role of the citizen. Future research can build on these results to explore the citizen's perception of their role during PHEs of another origin, as well as other geographical and historical contexts.
The public participated in the focus groups and received a non-expert report summarising the outcomes of the focus groups.
Research has found that a high percentage of people with diabetes experience stigma, with perceptions of stigma being significantly higher among people with Type 1 diabetes compared to those with Type 2 diabetes. These experiences of diabetes stigma can lead to psychological, behavioural and medical consequences. The aim of the current study was to explore the perceptions of diabetes stigma and propose strategies for addressing this from the perspective of key stakeholders.
A mixed methods design was used, commencing with an online qualitative survey (n = 128) and followed by a World Café (n = 11), where attendees reflected on their own experiences with stigma and discussed the survey findings.
The survey indicated that 75% of those with Type 1 diabetes and 51% with Type 2 had experienced diabetes stigma. The World Café identified three main areas that participants felt impacted their experiences with stigma or had the potential to help improve stigma: healthcare interactions, public awareness and media representations.
The findings supported previous research showing that diabetes stigma is prevalent among people with diabetes. The World Café was an excellent means of sharing knowledge and experiences among stakeholders, the findings of which will inform strategies to bring about change.
World Café is a collaborative method where stakeholders contribute to the production and analysis of data through rounds of discussion and feedback.
Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.
To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.
We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.
We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.
Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.
The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.
Bipolar disorder is a recurrent mental health disorder with a prevalence rate of 1.4%. On average, there can be a delay of 9.5 years from the initial presentation of symptoms to a confirmed diagnosis. Individuals living with bipolar disorder have a reduced life expectancy. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating bipolar disorder. The ASCEnD clinical trial will test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the aripiprazole/sertraline combination in comparison with quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar depression (individuals who suffer from depressive episodes in bipolar disorder) and will include a nested qualitative study.
The qualitative study will use semi-structured interviews to explore pilot trial participants' and clinicians' perspectives on recruitment procedures, the acceptability of the intervention, the management of bipolar disorder and attitudes to medication combinations.
Findings will inform recruitment strategies and optimise training for the participating sites in the ASCEnD full trial. They will also help to illuminate the lived experience of people with bipolar disorder and the clinicians who work with people with bipolar disorder. The discussion will explore perspectives on the delay in diagnosis, having a diagnosis, the impact of living with bipolar disorder and attitudes to treatment, including drug combinations.
A Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) has been convened with the support of the McPin Foundation, which will contribute to the ASCEnD trial and its nested qualitative study to provide input on the design and delivery of the trial and qualitative study, analysis of qualitative data and dissemination of findings.
Children with medical complexity (CMC) have high healthcare utilization and face unique challenges during hospital admissions. The evidence describing their experiences of inpatient care is distributed across disciplines. The aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence related to the inpatient experience of care for CMC and their families, particularly related to key aspects and methodological approaches, and identify gaps that warrant further study.
This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology and included all studies that reported experiences of acute hospital care for CMC/families. All study designs were included. Databases searched included EMBASE, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Web of Science, MEDLINE(R) and APA PsycInfo from 2000 to 2022. Details about the participants, concepts, study methods and key findings were abstracted using a data abstraction tool. A thematic analysis was conducted.
Forty-nine papers were included: 27 qualitative studies, 10 quantitative studies, six mixed methods studies, two descriptive studies and four reviews. Some quantitative studies used validated instruments to measure experience of care, but many used non-validated surveys. There were a few interventional studies with a small sample size. Results of thematic analysis described the importance of negotiating care roles, shared decision-making, common goal setting, relationship-building, communication, sharing expertise and the hospital setting itself.
CMC and families value relational elements of care and partnering through sharing expertise, decision-making and collaborative goal-setting when admitted to hospital.
This review was conducted in alignment with the principles of patient and family engagement. The review was conceptualized, co-designed and conducted with the full engagement of the project's parent–partner. This team member was involved in all stages from constructing the review question, to developing the protocol, screening articles and drafting this manuscript.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：