Registered care home managers' experiences of responding to the national care home visiting guidance in England during the Covid-19 pandemic; a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Visiting restrictions in care homes in England and many comparable countries during the Covid-19 pandemic were extensive and prolonged. We examined how care home managers experienced, understood and responded to the national care home visiting guidance in England in developing their visiting policies. METHODS: A diverse sample of 121 care home managers across England, recruited through varied sources including the NIHR ENRICH network of care homes, completed a 10-item qualitative survey. Follow-up, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sub-sample of 40 managers. Data were analysed thematically using Framework, a theoretically and methodologically flexible tool for data analysis in multiple researcher teams. FINDINGS: Some viewed the national guidance positively; as supporting the restrictive measures they felt necessary to protect residents and staff from infection, or as setting a broad policy framework while allowing local discretion. More commonly, however, managers experienced challenges. These included the guidance being issued late; the initial document and frequent, media-led updates not being user-friendly; important gaps, particularly in relation to dementia and the risks and harms associated with restrictions; guidance being unhelpfully open to interpretation while restrictive interpretations by regulators limited apparent scope for discretion; fragmented systems of local governance and poor central-local coordination; inconsistent access and quality of support from local regulators wider sources of information, advice and support that, while often valued, were experienced as uncoordinated, duplicative and sometimes confusing; and insufficient account taken of workforce challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Underlying many of the challenges experienced were structural issues, for which there have been longstanding calls for investment and strategic reform. For increasing sector resilience, these should be are urgently addressed. Future guidance would also be significantly strengthened by gathering better data, supporting well-facilitated peer exchange, engaging the sector more fully and dynamically in policy-making and learning from care home managers' and staff's experiences, particularly of assessing, managing and mitigating the wider risks and harms associated with visiting restrictions.

Exploring the return-on-investment for scaling screening and psychosocial treatment for women with common perinatal mental health problems in Malawi: Developing a cost-benefit-calculator tool.

This study sought to develop a user-friendly decision-making tool to explore country-specific estimates for costs and economic consequences of different options for scaling screening and psychosocial interventions for women with common perinatal mental health problems in Malawi. We developed a simple simulation model using a structure and parameter estimates that were established iteratively with experts, based on published trials, international databases and resources, statistical data, best practice guidance and intervention manuals. The model projects annual costs and returns to investment from 2022 to 2026. The study perspective is societal, including health expenditure and productivity losses. Outcomes in the form of health-related quality of life are measured in Disability Adjusted Life Years, which were converted into monetary values. Economic consequences include those that occur in the year in which the intervention takes place. Results suggest that the net benefit is relatively small at the beginning but increases over time as learning effects lead to a higher number of women being identified and receiving (cost­)effective treatment. For a scenario in which screening is first provided by health professionals (such as midwives) and a second screening and the intervention are provided by trained and supervised volunteers to equal proportions in group and individual sessions, as well as in clinic versus community setting, total costs in 2022 amount to US$ 0.66 million and health benefits to US$ 0.36 million. Costs increase to US$ 1.03 million and health benefits to US$ 0.93 million in 2026. Net benefits increase from US$ 35,000 in 2022 to US$ 0.52 million in 2026, and return-on-investment ratios from 1.05 to 1.45. Results from sensitivity analysis suggest that positive net benefit results are highly sensitive to an increase in staff salaries. This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing an economic decision-making tool that can be used by local policy makers and influencers to inform investments in maternal mental health.