The use of telehealth in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a survey of parents and caregivers.

The use of telehealth became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in child and adolescent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) services. Telehealth is defined as live, synchronous phone and video appointments between a healthcare provider and a parent and/or child with ADHD. There is a dearth of research on the use of telehealth within this population. The aim of this study was to examine parents' and caregivers' perceptions of telehealth for children and adolescents with ADHD. A cross-sectional survey design was employed. Recruitment of parents and caregivers of children and adolescents with ADHD was conducted online. The survey asked participants about their views of telehealth, previous experience, and willingness to use telehealth. Quantitative data were analysed using STATA. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. One hundred and twelve respondents participated in the survey. Participants were mostly female (n = 97, 86.6%) and aged between 45 and 54 (n = 64, 57.1%). Of the 61 (54.5%) participants with experience of telehealth, the majority reported that that they were at least satisfied with telehealth visits (n = 36, 59%), whilst approximately half rated their quality more poorly than in-person visits (n = 31, 50.8%). The majority of respondents (n = 91, 81.3%) reported that they would be willing to use telehealth for their child's future appointments. Most common reasons selected for wanting to use telehealth included saving time, improvements to the family routine, and reducing costs. Reasons selected for not wanting to use telehealth included not being able to receive hands-on care, belief that the quality of care is poorer than in-person consultations, and distraction of the child during telehealth visits. The study demonstrates that parents recognise deficits and benefits of telehealth, suggesting a need to build their trust and confidence in remote ADHD care.

Stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation of remote mental health consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Remote mental health consultations were swiftly implemented across mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has begun to inform future design and delivery of telemental health services. Exploring the in-depth experiences of those involved is important to understand the complex, multi-level factors that influence the implementation of remote mental health consultations. The aim of this study was to explore stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation of remote mental health consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted whereby semi-structured, individual interviews were undertaken with mental health providers, service users, and managers (n = 19) to acquire rich information. Interviews were conducted between November 2021 and July 2022. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were analysed thematically using a deductive and inductive approach. RESULTS: Six themes were identified. The advantages of remote mental health consultations were described, including convenience and increased accessibility to care. Providers and managers described varying levels of success with implementation, citing complexity and incompatibility with existing workflows as barriers to adoption. Providers' access to resources, guidance, and training were notable facilitators. Participants perceived remote mental health consultations to be satisfactory but not equivalent to in-person care in terms of quality. Views about the inferior quality of remote consultations stemmed from beliefs about the inhibited therapeutic relationship and a possible reduction in effectiveness compared to in-person care. Whilst a return to in-person services was mostly preferred, participants acknowledged a potential adjunct role for remote consultations in certain circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Remote mental health consultations were welcomed as a means to continue care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their swift and necessary adoption placed pressure on providers and organisations to adapt quickly, navigating challenges and adjusting to a new way of working. This implementation created changes to workflows and dynamics that disrupted the traditional method of mental health care delivery. Further consideration of the importance of the therapeutic relationship and fostering positive provider beliefs and feelings of competence are needed to ensure satisfactory and effective implementation of remote mental health consultations going forward.

Doctors' attitudes to maintenance of professional competence: A scoping review.

CONTEXT: Recent decades have seen the international implementation of programmes aimed at assuring the continuing competence of doctors. Maintenance of Professional Competence (MPC) programmes aim to encourage doctors' lifelong learning and ensure high-quality, safe patient care; however, programme requirements can be perceived as bureaucratic and irrelevant to practice, leading to disengagement. Doctors' attitudes and beliefs about MPC are critical to translating regulatory requirements into committed and effective lifelong learning. We aimed to summarise knowledge about doctors' attitudes to MPC to inform the development of MPC programmes and identify under-researched areas. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley, including sources of evidence about doctors' attitudes to MPC in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) as a guide. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five sources of evidence were included in the review. One hundred and two were peer-reviewed publications, and 23 were reports. Most were from the United Kingdom or the United States and used quantitative or mixed methods. There was agreement across jurisdictions that MPC is a good idea in theory but doubt that it achieves its objectives in practice. Attitudes to the processes of MPC, and their impact on learning and practice were mixed. The lack of connection between MPC and practice was a recurrent theme. Barriers to participation were lack of time and resources, complexity of the requirements and a lack of flexibility in addressing doctors' personal and professional circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the picture that emerged is that doctors are supportive of the concept of MPC but have mixed views on its processes. We highlight implications for research and practice arising from these findings.

Doctors' maintenance of professional competence: a qualitative study informed by the theory of planned behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Medical regulators worldwide have implemented programmes of maintenance of professional competence (MPC) to ensure that doctors, throughout their careers, are up to date and fit to practice. The introduction of MPC required doctors to adopt a range of new behaviours. Despite high enrolment rates on these programmes, it remains uncertain whether doctors engage in the process because they perceive benefits like improvements in their practice and professional development or if they solely meet the requirements to retain medical registration. In this study, we aimed to explore the relationship between doctors' beliefs, intention and behaviour regarding MPC through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to make explicit the factors that drive meaningful engagement with the process. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. From a pool of 1258 potential participants, we purposively selected doctors from multiple specialities, age groups, and locations across Ireland. We used thematic analysis, and the TPB informed the analytic coding process. RESULTS: Forty-one doctors participated in the study. The data analysis revealed doctors' intention and behaviour and the factors that shape their engagement with MPC. We found that attitudes and beliefs about the benefits and impact of MPC mediated the nature of doctors' engagement with the process. Some participants perceived positive changes in practice and other gains from participating in MPC, which facilitated committed engagement with the process. Others believed MPC was unfair, unnecessary, and lacking any benefit, which negatively influenced their intention and behaviour, and that was demonstrated by formalistic engagement with the process. Although participants with positive and negative attitudes shared perceptions about barriers to participation, such perceptions did not over-ride strongly positive beliefs about the benefits of MPC. While the requirements of the regulator strongly motivated doctors to participate in MPC, beliefs about patient expectations appear to have had less impact on intention and behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study broaden our understanding of the determinants of doctors' intention and behaviour regarding MPC, which offers a basis for designing targeted interventions. While the barriers to engagement with MPC resonate with previous research findings, our findings challenge critical assumptions about enhancing doctors' engagement with the process. Overall, our results suggest that focused policy initiatives aimed at strengthening the factors that underpin the intention and behaviour related to committed engagement with MPC are warranted.

An exploratory randomised trial investigating feasibility, potential impact and cost effectiveness of link workers for people living with multimorbidity attending general practices in deprived urban communities.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing link workers are non-health or social care professionals who connect people with psychosocial needs to non-clinical community supports. They are being implemented widely, but there is limited evidence for appropriate target populations or cost effectiveness. This study aimed to explore the feasibility, potential impact on health outcomes and cost effectiveness of practice-based link workers for people with multimorbidity living in deprived urban communities. METHODS: A pragmatic exploratory randomised trial with wait-list usual care control and blinding at analysis was conducted during the COVID 19 pandemic (July 2020 to January 2021). Participants had two or more ongoing health conditions, attended a general practitioner (GP) serving a deprived urban community who felt they may benefit from a one-month practice-based social prescribing link worker intervention.. Feasibility measures were recruitment and retention of participants, practices and link workers, and completion of outcome data. Primary outcomes at one month were health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and mental health (HADS). Potential cost effectiveness from the health service perspective was evaluated using quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on conversion of the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A capability index to utility scoring. RESULTS: From a target of 600, 251 patients were recruited across 13 general practices. Randomisation to intervention (n = 123) and control (n = 117) was after baseline data collection. Participant retention at one month was 80%. All practices and link workers (n = 10) were retained for the trial period. Data completion for primary outcomes was 75%. There were no significant differences identified using mixed effects regression analysis in EQ-5D-5L (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.09) or HADS (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.73), and no cost effectiveness advantages. A sensitivity analysis that considered link workers operating at full capacity in a non-pandemic setting, indicated the probability of effectiveness at the €45,000 ICER threshold value for Ireland was 0.787 using the ICECAP-A capability index. CONCLUSIONS: While the trial under-recruited participants mainly due to COVID-19 restrictions, it demonstrates that robust evaluations and cost utility analyses are possible. Further evaluations are required to establish cost effectiveness and should consider using the ICE-CAP-A wellbeing measure for cost utility analysis. REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ISRCTN. TITLE: Use of link workers to provide social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with complex multimorbidity in socially deprived areas. TRIAL ID: ISRCTN10287737. Date registered 10/12/2019. Link: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10287737.

Patient and provider perspectives of the implementation of remote consultations for community-dwelling people with mental health conditions: A systematic mixed studies review.

Remote, or tele-, consultations became a necessary form of mental healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the prevalence of mental health problems rises, they may have a role in future mental health services. We aimed to review the literature on patient and provider perspectives on factors influencing the implementation of remote consultations for community-dwelling people with mental health conditions. We searched five electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for empirical research up to July 13th, 2022. Only studies of synchronous, interactive remote consultations conducted via video, phone, or live-messaging between patients and providers were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We integrated qualitative and quantitative data from 39 studies into a single mixed-methods synthesis. We mapped reported factors to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Acceptability was generally high among participants, despite concerns about the quality of care and the perceived impeded therapeutic relationship. A prominent facilitator was the increased accessibility and convenience of remote consultations, while lack of appropriate infrastructure and low patient comfort and competence were among the most prevalent barriers. This review highlights the importance of patient preferences and provider buy-in to the future of remote consultations.

Protocol for a mixed methods process evaluation of the LinkMM randomised controlled trial "Use of link workers to provide social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with complex multimorbidity in socially deprived areas".

Background  Multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic conditions is increasing in prevalence and is associated with increased health care use, fragmented care and poorer health outcomes. Link workers are non-health or social care professionals who support people to connect with resources in their community to improve their well-being, a process commonly referred to as social prescribing. The use of link workers in primary care may be an effective intervention in helping those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve health and well-being, but the evidence base in limited. The LinkMM study is a randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of link workers based in primary care, providing social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with multimorbidity. The aim of the LinkMM process evaluation is to investigate the implementation of the link worker intervention, mechanisms of impact and influence of the specific context on these, as per the Medical Research Council framework, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Methods  Quantitative data will be gathered from a number of sources including researcher logbooks, participant baseline questionnaires, client management database, and will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Semi structured interviews with participants will investigate their experiences of the intervention. Interviews with link workers, practices and community stakeholders will explore how the intervention was implemented and barriers and facilitators to this. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts will be conducted. Discussion  The process evaluation of the LinkMM trial will provide important information allowing a more in-depth understanding of how the intervention worked and lessons for future wider scale implementation.

Prevalence and predictors of medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to describe medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity according to the current literature, and synthesise predictors of non-adherence in this population. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for relevant articles published in English language between January 2009 and April 2019. Quantitative studies reporting medication non-adherence and/or predictors of non-adherence among people with two or more chronic conditions were included in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup of studies that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants, rather than seeking people with specific conditions. Remaining studies reporting prevalence and predictors of non-adherence were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: The database search produced 10 998 records and a further 75 were identified through other sources. Following full-text screening, 178 studies were included in the review. The range of reported non-adherence differed by measurement method, at 76.5% for self-report, 69.4% for pharmacy data, and 44.1% for electronic monitoring. A meta-analysis was conducted with eight studies (n=8949) that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants. The pooled prevalence of non-adherence was 42.6% (95% CI: 34.0 - 51.3%, k=8, I2=97%, p<0.01). The overall range of non-adherence was 7.0%-83.5%. Frequently reported correlates of non-adherence included previous non-adherence and treatment-related beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified a heterogeneous literature in terms of conditions studied, and definitions and measures of non-adherence used. Results suggest that future attempts to improve adherence among people with multimorbidity should determine for which conditions individuals require most support. The variable levels of medication non-adherence highlight the need for more attention to be paid by healthcare providers to the impact of multimorbidity on chronic disease self-management. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019133849.

Implementation of telemedicine consultations for people with mental health conditions in the community: a protocol for a systematic review.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic response has led to an exponential increase in the use and spread of telemedicine internationally. In community mental health care settings, telemedicine services were implemented within a few weeks, with little time for rigorous planning. Despite the reported acceptability of telemedicine by patients and clinicians, barriers to its implementation have come to light. There is now a need to investigate these barriers, and facilitators, as telemedicine begins to show potential promise beyond the pandemic. We propose a review that aims to identify the factors affecting the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental health conditions in the community. Methods: A systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Five electronic databases will be searched using a pre-defined search strategy from 2016 to 2021. Only studies of synchronous, interactive telemedicine consultations conducted via video, phone or live messaging between patients and providers will be included. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies will be eligible for inclusion. Only studies published in the English language will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two reviewers. Full text articles will be screened by a single reviewer, with a random 20% sample screened by a second reviewer. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) by two reviewers. Data will be extracted and tabulated to address the aims of the review. A narrative synthesis will be conducted and reported factors will be mapped to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Conclusion: By identifying the factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine consultations for patients with mental conditions in the community, consideration can be given to both barriers and facilitators that could be addressed in future mental health services planning. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021273422 (04/10/2021).

Maintenance of professional competence in Ireland: a national survey of doctors' attitudes and experiences.

OBJECTIVES: Programmes to ensure doctors' maintenance of professional competence (MPC) have been established in many countries. Since 2011, doctors in Ireland have been legally required to participate in MPC. A significant minority has been slow to engage with MPC, mirroring the contested nature of such programmes internationally. This study aimed to describe doctors' attitudes and experiences of MPC in Ireland with a view to enhancing engagement. PARTICIPANTS: All registered medical practitioners in Ireland required to undertake MPC in 2018 were surveyed using a 33-item cross-sectional mixed-methods survey designed to elicit attitudes, experiences and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: There were 5368 responses (response rate 42%). Attitudes to MPC were generally positive, but the time, effort and expense involved outweighed the benefit for half of doctors. Thirty-eight per cent agreed that MPC is a tick-box exercise. Heavy workload, travel, requirement to record continuing professional development activities and demands placed on personal time were difficulties cited. Additional support, as well as higher quality, more varied educational activities, were among suggested improvements. Thirteen per cent lacked confidence that they could meet requirements, citing employment status as the primary issue. MPC was particularly challenging for those working less than full-time, in locum or non-clinical roles, and taking maternity or sick leave. Seventy-seven per cent stated a definite intention to comply with MPC requirements. Being male, or having a basic medical qualification from outside Ireland, was associated with less firm intention to comply. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors need to be convinced of the benefits of MPC to them and their patients. A combination of clear communication and improved relevance to practice would help. Addition of a facilitated element, for example, appraisal, and varied ways to meet requirements, would support participation. MPC should be adequately resourced, including provision of high-quality free educational activities. Systems should be established to continually evaluate doctors' perspectives.

Doctors' attitudes to, beliefs about, and experiences of the regulation of professional competence: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Historically, individual doctors were responsible for maintaining their own professional competence. More recently, changing patient expectations, debate about the appropriateness of professional self-regulation, and high-profile cases of malpractice have led to a move towards formal regulation of professional competence (RPC). Such programmes require doctors to demonstrate that they are fit to practice, through a variety of means. Participation in RPC is now part of many doctors' professional lives, yet it remains a highly contested area. Cost, limited evidence of impact, and lack of relevance to practice are amongst the criticisms cited. Doctors' attitudes towards RPC, their beliefs about its objectives and effectiveness, and their experiences of trying to meet its requirements can impact engagement with the process. We aim to conduct a scoping review to map the empirical literature in this area, to summarise the key findings, and to identify gaps for future research. METHODS: We will conduct our review following the six phases outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. We will search seven electronic databases: Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Sciences Full Text, and SocINDEX for relevant publications, and the websites of medical regulatory and educational organisations for documents. We will undertake backward and forward citation tracking of selected studies and will consult with international experts regarding key publications. Two researchers will independently screen papers for inclusion and extract data using a piloted data extraction tool. Data will be collated to provide a descriptive summary of the literature. A thematic analysis of the key findings will be presented as a narrative summary of the literature. DISCUSSION: We believe that this review will be of value to those tasked with the design and implementation of RPC programmes, helping them to maximise doctors' commitment and engagement, and to researchers, pointing to areas that would benefit from further enquiry. This research is timely; internationally existing programmes are evolving, new programmes are being initiated, and many jurisdictions do not yet have programmes in place. There is an opportunity for learning across different programmes and from the experiences of established programmes. Our review will support that learning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews.