Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people experiencing incarceration: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on people experiencing incarceration (PEI), focusing particularly on clinical outcomes compared with the general population. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's good practice guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Social Policy and Practice, Criminology Connection, ASSIA, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web Of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 reviews, COVID-19 Evidence Reviews and L*OVE COVID-19 Evidence databases were searched up to 21 October 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included studies presenting data specific to adults ≥18 years experiencing incarceration, with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection. All studies with a comparison group, regardless of study design and country were included. Studies with no comparison group data or not measuring clinical outcomes/health inequalities were excluded. Studies focussing on detained migrants, forensic hospitals, prison staff and those not in English were also excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data underwent narrative synthesis using a framework analysis based on the objectives, for infection rates, testing, hospitalisation, mortality, vaccine uptake rates and mental health outcomes. There was no scope for meta-analysis, due to the heterogeneity of evidence available. RESULTS: 4516 references were exported from the databases and grey literature searched, of which 55 met the inclusion criteria. Most were from the USA and were retrospective analyses. Compared with the general population, PEI were usually found to have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and poorer clinical outcomes. Conflicting data were found regarding vaccine uptake and testing rates compared with the general population. The mental health of PEI declined during the pandemic. Certain subgroups were more adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as ethnic minorities and older PEI. CONCLUSION: PEI have poorer COVID-19 clinical outcomes than the general public, as shown by largely low-quality heterogenous evidence. Further high-quality research of continuing clinical outcomes and appropriate mitigating interventions is required to assess downstream effects of the pandemic on PEI. However, performing such research in the context of incarceration facilities is highly complex and potentially challenging. Prioritisation of resources for this vulnerable group should be a focus of national policy in the event of future pandemics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022296968.

Mitigating COVID-19 Burden in People Experiencing Incarceration: A Systematic Review.

People experiencing incarceration (PEI) have poorer COVID-19 clinical outcomes compared with the general population. Many interventions were implemented in incarceration facilities to mitigate the burden of COVID-19. This systematic review seeks to analyze the effectiveness of these interventions. Twenty-two studies were included. Reduction of the incarcerated population/interfacility transfers, cohorting of new and infectious incarcerated people, mass asymptomatic testing (despite often low uptake), hygiene measures, and prioritization of PEI in vaccine policy had some evidence of effectiveness at reducing transmission and risk of COVID-19 in incarceration facilities. Visitation suspension had conflicting evidence of effectiveness. Studies were of low or medium quality. Inadequate control of confounding variables limited the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn. Many studies relied on retrospective, third-party data. Higher quality research is required.

"It was classed as a nonemergency": Women's experiences of kidney disease and preconception decision-making, family planning, and parenting in the United Kingdom during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experiences of women with kidney disease, residing in the United Kingdom (UK), living through the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic with specific focus on preconception decision-making, family planning, and parenting. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study, comprising an online survey and follow-up interviews, with UK-resident women aged 18-50. RESULTS: We received 431 surveys and conducted 30 interviews. Half (n = 221, 51%) of the survey respondents considered that COVID-19 influenced the quality of communication with healthcare professionals and 68% (n = 295) felt that the pandemic disrupted their support networks. Interview participants indicated that delayed and canceled appointments caused anxiety, grief, and loss of pregnancy options. Women's perception of themselves as (good) mothers as well as their capacity to have and raise a child, meet partners, and sustain healthy relationships was negatively affected by the "clinically extremely vulnerable" label. Women's trust in their healthcare was dismantled by miscommunication and variation in lockdown rules that caused confusion and increased worry. Women reported that COVID-19 contributed to postnatal depression, excessive concern over infant mortality, preoccupation over others following rules, and catastrophising. CONCLUSION: Some women in the UK with chronic kidney disease lost or missed their opportunity to have children during the pandemic. Future pandemic planners need to look more holistically and longer term at what is and is not classed as an emergency, both in how services are reconfigured and how people with chronic conditions are identified, communicated with, and treated.

The Impact of Being Homeless on the Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19: Systematic Review.

Objective: The homeless population experiences inequality in health compared with the general population, which may have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact of being homeless on the outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. This systematic review aimed to analyse the impact of experiencing homelessness on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, including the effects on health inequalities. Methods: A review protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (PROSPERO registration 2022 CRD42022304941). Nine databases were searched in November 2022 to identify studies on homeless populations which contained primary research on the following outcomes of COVID-19: incidence, hospitalisation, mortality, long COVID, mental wellbeing, and evidence of inequalities. Included studies were summarised with narrative synthesis. Results: The searches yielded 8,233 initial hits; after screening, 41 studies were included. Overall, evidence showed that those in crowded living settings had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to rough sleepers and the general population. The homeless population had higher rates of hospitalisation and mortality than the general population, lower vaccination rates, and suffered negative mental health impacts. Conclusion: This systematic review shows the homeless population is more susceptible to COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the actual impact of the pandemic on this population, and of interventions to mitigate overall risk, given the low certainty of findings from some of the low-quality evidence available. In addition, further research is required to ascertain the impact of long COVID on those experiencing homelessness, since the present review yielded no studies on this topic.

Feminizing care pathways: Mixed-methods study of reproductive options, decision making, pregnancy, post-natal care and parenting amongst women with kidney disease.

AIMS: To identify the needs, experiences and preferences of women with kidney disease in relation to their reproductive health to inform development of shared decision-making interventions. DESIGN: UK-wide mixed-methods convergent design (Sep 20-Aug 21). METHODS: Online questionnaire (n = 431) with validated components. Purposively sampled semi-structured interviews (n = 30). Patient and public input throughout. FINDINGS: Kidney disease was associated with defeminization, negatively affecting current (sexual) relationships and perceptions of future life goals. There was little evidence that shared decision making was taking place. Unplanned pregnancies were common, sometimes influenced by poor care and support and complicated systems. Reasons for (not) wanting children varied. Complicated pregnancies and miscarriages were common. Women often felt that it was more important to be a "good mother" than to address their health needs, which were often unmet and unrecognized. Impacts of pregnancy on disease and options for alternates to pregnancy were not well understood. CONCLUSION: The needs and reproductive priorities of women are frequently overshadowed by their kidney disease. High-quality shared decision-making interventions need to be embedded as routine in a feminized care pathway that includes reproductive health. Research is needed in parallel to examine the effectiveness of interventions and address inequalities. IMPACT: We do not fully understand the expectations, needs, experiences and preferences of women with kidney disease for planning and starting a family or deciding not to have children. Women lack the knowledge, resources and opportunities to have high-quality conversations with their healthcare professionals. Decisions are highly personal and related to a number of health, social and cultural factors; individualized approaches to care are essential. Healthcare services need to be redesigned to ensure that women are able to make informed choices about pregnancy and alternative routes to becoming a parent. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The original proposal for this research came from listening to the experiences of women in clinic who reported unmet needs and detailed experiences of their pregnancies (positive and negative). A patient group was involved in developing the funding application and helped to refine the objectives by sharing their experiences. Two women who are mothers living with kidney disease were co-opted as core members of the research team. We hosted an interim findings event and invited patients and wider support services (adoption, fertility, surrogacy, education and maternal chronic kidney disease clinics) from across the UK to attend. We followed the UK national standards for patient and public involvement throughout.

Sharing decisions on reproductive goals: A mixed-methods study of the views of women who have cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: There are complex medical, psychological, social and economic aspects to becoming a parent with Cystic Fibrosis (CF). A shared decision-making (SDM) approach could help women with CF make informed decisions about their reproductive goals that are sensitive to their individual values and preferences. This study investigated capability, opportunity, and motivation to participate in SDM from the perspective of women with CF. METHODS: Mixed-methods design. An international online survey was completed by 182 women with CF, to investigate participation in SDM in relation to reproductive goals, and measures of capability (information needs), opportunity (social environment) and motivation (SDM attitudes and self-efficacy) to engage in SDM. Twenty-one women were interviewed using a visual timelines method to explore their SDM experiences and preferences. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Women with higher decision self-efficacy reported better experiences of SDM relating to their reproductive goals. Decision self-efficacy was positively associated with social support, age, and level of education, highlighting inequalities. Interviews indicated that women were highly motivated to engage in SDM, but their capability was compromised by lack of information, perception of insufficient opportunities for focused discussions about SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Women with CF are keen to engage in SDM about reproductive health, but currently lack sufficient information and support to do so. Interventions at patient, clinician and system levels are needed to support capability, opportunity and motivation to engage equitably in SDM in relation to their reproductive goals.

Interventions to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 for people experiencing homelessness and their effectiveness: a systematic review.

Objectives: People experiencing homelessness also experience poorer clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Various interventions were implemented for people experiencing homelessness in 2020-2022 in different countries in response to varied national guidance to limit the impact of COVID-19. It is important to understand what was done and the effectiveness of such interventions. This systematic review aims to describe interventions to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 in people experiencing homelessness and their effectiveness. Methods: A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO. Nine databases were searched for studies on interventions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on people experiencing homelessness. Included studies were summarised with narrative synthesis. Results: From 8,233 references retrieved from the database searches and handsearching, 15 were included. There was a variety of interventions, including early identification of potential COVID-19 infections, provision of isolation space, healthcare support, and urgent provision of housing regardless of COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: The strategies identified were generally found to be effective, feasible, and transferable. This review must be interpreted with caution due to the low volume of eligible studies and the low quality of the evidence available.

Identities of women who have an autoimmune rheumatic disease [ARD] during pregnancy planning, pregnancy and early parenting: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Women of reproductive age who have autoimmune rheumatic diseases [ARDs] have expressed a need to be better supported with making decisions about pregnancy. Women with ARDs want their motherhood identities and associated preferences to be taken into account in decisions about their healthcare. The aim of this study was to explore the interplay between illness and motherhood identities of women with ARDs during preconception decision making. METHODS: Timeline-facilitated qualitative interviews with women diagnosed with an ARD [18-49 years old]. Participants were purposively sampled based on the following three criteria: thinking about getting pregnant, currently pregnant, or had young children. Interviews were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-two women were interviewed face-to-face [N = 6] or over the telephone [N = 16]. Interview length ranged from 20 minutes to 70 minutes, with a mean length of 48 minutes. Three main themes were identified: prioritisation, discrepancy, and trade-off. Difficulties in balancing multiple identities in healthcare encounters were reported. Women used 'self-guides' as a reference for priority setting in a dynamic process that shifted as their level of disease activity altered and as their motherhood identity became more or less of a focus at a given point in time. Women's illness and motherhood identities did not present in isolation but were intertwined. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need for holistic person-centred care that supports women with the complex and emotive decisions relating to preconception decision-making. In practice, health professionals need to consider women's multiple and sometimes conflicting identities, and include both their condition and family associated goals and values within healthcare communication.

Views and experience of breastfeeding in public: A qualitative systematic review.

Breastfeeding rates in many Global North countries are low. Qualitative research highlights that breastfeeding in public is a particular challenge, despite mothers often having the legal right to do so. To identify barriers and facilitators, we systematically searched the qualitative research from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries relating to breastfeeding in public spaces from 2007 to 2021. Data were analysed using the Thematic Synthesis technique. The review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42017081504). Database searching identified 3570 unique records. In total, 74 papers, theses, or book chapters, relating to 71 studies, were included, accounting for over 17,000 mothers. Overall, data quality was high. Our analysis identified that five core factors influenced mothers' thought processes and their breastfeeding in public behaviour: legal system; structural (in)equality; knowledge; beliefs and the social environment. Macro-level factors relating to legislation and inequality urgently require redress if breastfeeding rates are to be increased. Widespread culture change is also required to enhance knowledge, change hostile beliefs and thus the social environment in which mother/infant dyads exist. In particular, the sexualisation of breasts, disgust narratives and lack of exposure among observers to baby-led infant feeding patterns resulted in beliefs which created a stigmatising environment. In this context, many mothers felt unable to breastfeed in public; those who breastfed outside the home were usually highly self-aware, attempting to reduce their exposure to conflict. Evidence-based theoretically informed interventions to remove barriers to breastfeeding in public are urgently required.

Perceived threat of COVID-19, attitudes towards vaccination, and vaccine hesitancy: A prospective longitudinal study in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Using the Health Belief Model as a conceptual framework, we investigated the association between attitudes towards COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations, and vaccine hesitancy and change in these variables over a 9-month period in a UK cohort. METHODS: The COPE study cohort (n = 11,113) was recruited via an online survey at enrolment in March/April 2020. The study was advertised via the HealthWise Wales research registry and social media. Follow-up data were available for 6942 people at 3 months (June/July 2020) and 5037 at 12 months (March/April 2021) post-enrolment. Measures included demographics, perceived threat of COVID-19, perceived control, intention to accept or decline a COVID-19 vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination. Logistic regression models were fitted cross-sectionally at 3 and 12 months to assess the association between motivational factors and vaccine hesitancy. Longitudinal changes in motivational variables for vaccine-hesitant and non-hesitant groups were examined using mixed-effect analysis of variance models. RESULTS: Fear of COVID-19, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and perceived personal control over COVID-19 infection transmission decreased between the 3- and 12-month surveys. Vaccine hesitancy at 12 months was independently associated with low fear of the disease and more negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Specific barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake included concerns about safety and efficacy in light of its rapid development, mistrust of government and pharmaceutical companies, dislike of coercive policies, and perceived lack of relaxation in COVID-19-related restrictions as the vaccination programme progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing fear of COVID-19, perceived susceptibility to the disease, and perceptions of personal control over reducing infection-transmission may impact future COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in neonatal medicine: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of parental perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: Systematically review parental perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in neonatology, identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: Electronic database (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) and follow-up searches were conducted to identify qualitative studies. Data were extracted, thematically analysed and synthesised. RESULTS: Searches yielded 2445 papers, of which 25 were included. Thematic analysis identified six key themes. Key barriers included emotional crises experienced in the NICU setting, lack of medical information provided to parents to inform decision-making, inadequate communication of information, poor relationships with caregivers, lack of continuity in care, and perceived power imbalances between HCPs and parents. Key facilitators included clear, honest and compassionate communication of medical information, caring and empathetic caregivers, continuity in care, and tailored approaches that reflected parent's desired level of involvement. CONCLUSION: The highly specialised environment, and the emotional crises experienced by parents impact significantly on their perceived capacity to engage in surrogate decision-making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Complex and multi-factorial interventions that address the training needs of HCPs, and the emotional, informational and decision support needs of parents are needed. SDM skills training, improved information delivery, and integrated emotional and decisional support could help parents to become more involved in SDM for their infant.

Cohort profile: The UK COVID-19 Public Experiences (COPE) prospective longitudinal mixed-methods study of health and well-being during the SARSCoV2 coronavirus pandemic.

Public perceptions of pandemic viral threats and government policies can influence adherence to containment, delay, and mitigation policies such as physical distancing, hygienic practices, use of physical barriers, uptake of testing, contact tracing, and vaccination programs. The UK COVID-19 Public Experiences (COPE) study aims to identify determinants of health behaviour using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM-B) model using a longitudinal mixed-methods approach. Here, we provide a detailed description of the demographic and self-reported health characteristics of the COPE cohort at baseline assessment, an overview of data collected, and plans for follow-up of the cohort. The COPE baseline survey was completed by 11,113 UK adult residents (18+ years of age). Baseline data collection started on the 13th of March 2020 (10-days before the introduction of the first national COVID-19 lockdown in the UK) and finished on the 13th of April 2020. Participants were recruited via the HealthWise Wales (HWW) research registry and through social media snowballing and advertising (Facebook®, Twitter®, Instagram®). Participants were predominantly female (69%), over 50 years of age (68%), identified as white (98%), and were living with their partner (68%). A large proportion (67%) had a college/university level education, and half reported a pre-existing health condition (50%). Initial follow-up plans for the cohort included in-depth surveys at 3-months and 12-months after the first UK national lockdown to assess short and medium-term effects of the pandemic on health behaviour and subjective health and well-being. Additional consent will be sought from participants at follow-up for data linkage and surveys at 18 and 24-months after the initial UK national lockdown. A large non-random sample was recruited to the COPE cohort during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will enable longitudinal analysis of the determinants of health behaviour and changes in subjective health and well-being over the course of the pandemic.

Engaging and supporting women with chronic kidney disease with pre-conception decision-making (including their experiences during COVID 19): A mixed-methods study protocol.

AIM: To report a protocol for a qualitative study to better understand the key factors that influence decision making about pregnancy from women's perspectives and to use these data to develop a theoretical model for shared decision-making tools for the multiple stakeholders. DESIGN: Mixed-method design using online surveys (with validated components) and purposively sampled follow-up semi structured interviews. METHODS: Funded from September 2020 for 12 months. Online surveys of adult women (aged 18-50) identified via all Wales kidney database (n ≥ 500), additional recruitment through multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, relevant third sector organizations and social media. Follow-up in-depth qualitative interviews with n = 30 women. Linear regression models to identify associations between shared decision-making preferences and clinical and psychosocial variables. Qualitative interviews will use a visual timeline task to empower women in taking control over their narratives. Qualitative data will be fully transcribed and analysed thematically, based around a chronological and theoretical (theoretical domains framework) structure that maps out key challenges and opportunities for improved decision support in the care pathway. Visual timelines will be used during stakeholder consultation activities, to enable us to co-create a map of current support, gaps in provision, and opportunities for interventions. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively to characterize our cohort. We will assemble a multidisciplinary shared decision-making intervention development group and provide ongoing stakeholder consultation activities with patient and public representatives. DISCUSSION: Outcomes will support new learning into; the ways women's knowledge of kidney disease may affect family planning and pregnancy, their needs in terms of psychological and social support, and how they weigh up the pros and cons of starting a family. IMPACT: Evidence will inform the design of new shared decision-making tools to better support women with the complex and often emotional decisions about having children while living with kidney disease.

The role of perceived public and private green space in subjective health and wellbeing during and after the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Research has consistently shown that access to parks and gardens is beneficial to people's health and wellbeing. In this paper, we explore the role of both public and private green space in subjective health and wellbeing during and after the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak that took place in the UK in the first half of 2020. It makes use of the longitudinal COVID-19 Public Experiences (COPE) study, with baseline data collected in March/April 2020 (during the first peak) and follow-up data collected in June/July 2020 (after the first peak) which included an optional module that asked respondents about their home and neighbourhood (n = 5,566). Regression analyses revealed that both perceived access to public green space (e.g. a park or woodland) and reported access to a private green space (a private garden) were associated with better subjective wellbeing and self-rated health. In line with the health compensation hypothesis for green space, private gardens had a greater protective effect where the nearest green space was perceived to be more than a 10-minute walk away. This interaction was however only present during the first COVID-19 peak when severe lockdown restrictions came into place, but not in the post-peak period when restrictions were being eased. The study found few differences across demographic groups. A private garden was relatively more beneficial for men than for women during but not after the first peak. The results suggest that both public and private green space are an important resource for health and wellbeing in times of crisis.

Using Visual Timelines in Telephone Interviews: Reflections and Lessons Learned From the Star Family Study.

Visual timeline methods have been used as part of face-to-face qualitative interviewing with vulnerable populations to uncover the intricacies of lived experiences, but little is known about whether visual timelines can be effectively used in telephone interviews. In this article, we reflect on the process of using visual timelines in 16 telephone interviews with women as part of the "STarting a family when you have an Autoimmune Rheumatic disease" study (STAR Family Study). The visual timeline method was used to empower women to organize and share their narratives about the sensitive and complex topic of starting a family. We conducted a thematic analysis of the audio-recorded interview data, using researchers' field notes and reflections to provide context for our understanding of the benefits of using timelines and to understand the process of using visual timelines during telephone interviews. Resource packs were sent to women before study participation; 11 of the 16 women completed a version of the timeline activity. Six themes were identified in the methodological data analysis: (1) use and adaptation of the timeline tool, (2) timeline exchange, (3) framing the interview: emphasizing that women are in control, (4) jumping straight in, (5) taking a lead, and (6) disclosing personal and sensitive experiences. The use of visual timelines facilitated interviewee control and elicited rich narratives of participants' experiences in telephone interviews. Women created their visual timelines autonomously and retained ownership of their timeline data; these features of the data generation process need to be considered when using visual timelines in telephone rather than face-to-face interviews. Use of visual methods within telephone interviews is feasible, can generate rich data, and should be further explored in a wider range of settings.

"Nobody knows, or seems to know how rheumatology and breastfeeding works": Women's experiences of breastfeeding whilst managing a long-term limiting condition - A qualitative visual methods study.

BACKGROUND: Only around 1% of babies in the UK are breastfed exclusively until six months of age as recommended by the World Health Organisation. One in ten women who have recently given birth in the UK have a long-term illness and they are at increased risk of stopping breastfeeding early. We considered women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases as an exemplar group of long term illnesses, to explore the barriers and enablers to breastfeeding AIM: To understand the experiences of infant feeding among women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases and to identify potential barriers and enablers. DESIGN: Qualitative visual timeline-facilitated interviews. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 128 women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who were considering pregnancy, pregnant, or had young children took part in an online survey as part of the STAR Family Study. Of these, 13 women who had children were purposefully sampled to be interviewed. Interviews took place in person or on the telephone. Timeline-facilitated interviews were used to focus on lived experiences and topics important to the women, including early parenting. We conducted a focused thematic analysis of women's lived experiences of infant feeding. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified in relation to breastfeeding: lack of information about medication safety, lack of support in decision-making and maintaining breastfeeding, and maternal guilt. CONCLUSIONS: Women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases found it difficult to access the information they needed about medications to make informed decisions about breastfeeding. They often also felt pressurised into breastfeeding and experienced feelings of guilt if they were unable, or did not wish to breastfeed. Tailored interventions are required that adopt a non-judgmental and person-centred approach to support decision-making in regard to infant feeding, providing women with information that can best enable them to make infant feeding choices.

Ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision-making in clinical practice in the UK: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how observer and self-report measures of shared decision-making (SDM) evaluate the decision-making activities that patients and clinicians undertake in routine consultations. DESIGN: Multi-method study using observational and self-reported measures of SDM and qualitative analysis. SETTING: Breast care and predialysis teams who had already implemented SDM. PARTICIPANTS: Breast care consultants, clinical nurse specialists and patients who were making decisions about treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Predialysis clinical nurse specialists and patients who needed to make dialysis treatment decisions. METHODS: Consultations were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SDM was measured using Observer OPTION-5 and a dyadic SureScore self-reported measure. RESULTS: Twenty-two breast and 21 renal consultations were analysed. SureScore indicated that clinicians and patients felt SDM was occurring, but scores showed ceiling effects for most participants, making differentiation difficult. There was mismatch between SureScore and OPTION-5 score data, the latter showing that each consultation lacked at least some elements of SDM. Highest scoring items using OPTION-5 were 'incorporating patient preferences into decisions' for the breast team (mean 18.5, range 12.5-20, SD 2.39) and 'eliciting patient preferences to options' for the renal team (mean 16.15, range 10-20, SD 3.48). Thematic analysis identified that the SDM encounter is difficult to measure because decision-making is often distributed across encounters and time, with multiple people, it is contextually adapted and can involve multiple decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported measures can broadly indicate satisfaction with SDM, but do not tell us about the quality of the interaction and are unlikely to capture the multi-staged nature of the SDM process. Observational measures provide an indication of the extent to which elements of SDM are present in the observed consultation, but cannot explain why some elements might not be present or scored lower. Findings are important when considering measuring SDM in practice.

A descriptive model of shared decision making derived from routine implementation in clinical practice ('Implement-SDM'): Qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Research is needed to understand how Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is enacted in routine clinical settings. We aimed to 1) describe the process of SDM between clinicians and patients; 2) examine how well the SDM process compares to a prescriptive model of SDM, and 3) propose a descriptive model based on observed SDM in routine practice. METHODS: Patients with chronic kidney disease and early stage breast cancer were recruited consecutively via Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (UK) teams. Consultations were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seventy-six consultations were observed: 26 pre-dialysis consultations and two consultations each for 25 breast cancer patients. Key stages of the 'Three Talk Model' were observed. However, we also observed more elements and greater complexity: a distinct preparation phase; tailored and evolving integrative option conversation; patients and clinicians developing 'informed preferences'; distributed and multi-stage decisions; and a more open-ended planning discussion. Use of decision aids was limited. CONCLUSION: A more complex picture was observed compared with previous portrayals in current theoretical models. PRACTICE IIMPLICATIONS: The model can provide a basis for future training and initiatives to promote SDM, and tackle the gap between what is advocated in policy, but rarely achieved in practice.

"What would you recommend doctor?"-Discourse analysis of a moment of dissonance when sharing decisions in clinical consultations.

BACKGROUND: Proven benefits of Shared Decision Making (SDM) include improved patient knowledge, involvement and confidence in making decisions. Although widely advocated in policy, SDM is still not widely implemented in practice. A common patient-reported barrier is feeling that "doctor knows best"; thus, patients often defer decisions to the clinician. OBJECTIVE: To examine the nature of the discourse when patients ask clinicians for a treatment recommendation during consultations when treatment decisions are being shared and to examine clinicians' strategies used in response. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Theme-orientated discourse analysis was performed on eight audio-recordings of breast cancer diagnostic consultations in which patients or their partners attempted to defer treatment decisions to the clinician. Clinicians were trained in SDM. RESULTS: Tension was evident in a number of consultations when treatment recommendations were requested. Clinicians responded to recommendation requests by explaining why the decision was being shared (personal nature of the decision, individual preferences and equivalent survival outcomes of treatment options). There was only one instance where a clinician gave a treatment recommendation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for clinicians to facilitate SDM when patients seem to defer decisional responsibility include being clear about why the decision is being shared, acknowledging that this is difficult and making patients feel supported. When patients seek guidance, clinicians can provide a recommendation if grounded in an understanding of the patient's values.

Reaching a consensus on research priorities for supporting women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during pre-conception, pregnancy and early parenting: A Nominal Group Technique exercise with lay and professional stakeholders.

Background:Women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) find it difficult to get information and support with family planning, pregnancy, and early parenting. A systematic approach to prioritising research is required to accelerate development and evaluation of interventions to meet the complex needs of this population.  Methods:A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) exercise was carried out with lay and professional stakeholders (n=29). Stakeholders were prepared for debate through presentation of available evidence. Stakeholders completed three tasks to develop, individually rank, and reach consensus on research priorities: Task 1 - mapping challenges and services using visual timelines; Task 2 - identifying research topics; Task 3 - individually ranking research topics in priority order. Results of the ranking exercise were fed back to the group for comment.   Results:The main themes emerging from Task 1 were the need for provision of information, multi-disciplinary care, and social and peer support. In Task 2, 15 research topics and 58 sub-topics were identified around addressing the challenges and gaps in care identified during Task 1.  In Task 3, a consensus was reached on the ten research topics that should be given the highest priority. These were individually ranked, resulting in the following order of priorities (from 1 - highest to 10 - lowest): 1. Shared decision-making early in the care pathway; 2. Pre-conception counseling; 3. Information about medication use during pregnancy/breastfeeding; 4. Personalised care planning; 5. Support for partners/family members; 6. Information about local support/disease specific issues; 7. Shared decision-making across the care pathway; 8. Peer-support; 9. Social inequalities in care, and; 10. Guidance on holistic/alternative therapies.    Conclusions:This systematic approach to identification of research priorities from a multi-disciplinary and lay perspective indicated that activities should focus on development and evaluation of interventions that increase patient involvement in clinical decision-making, multi-disciplinary models of care, and timely provision of information.