UK healthcare services for people with fibromyalgia: results from two web-based national surveys (the PACFiND study).

BACKGROUND: The UK's "Getting It Right First Time" programme recommends that management of people with fibromyalgia should centre on primary care. However, it remains unclear as to how best to organise health systems to deliver services to optimise patient outcomes. AIM: To profile UK healthcare services for people with fibromyalgia: provision of National Health Services (NHS) and use of non-NHS services by people with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Two online open surveys (A and B) incorporating questions about diagnosis, treatment and management of fibromyalgia and gaps in healthcare services were conducted between 11th September 2019 and 3rd February 2020. These were targeted to NHS healthcare professionals consulting with people with fibromyalgia (Survey A) and people ≥16 years diagnosed with fibromyalgia using non-NHS services to manage their condition (Survey B). Descriptive statistics were used to report quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken for qualitative data. RESULTS: Survey A received 1701 responses from NHS healthcare professionals across the UK. Survey B received 549 responses from people with fibromyalgia. The results show that NHS services for people with fibromyalgia are highly disparate, with few professionals reporting care pathways in their localities. Diagnosing fibromyalgia is variable among NHS healthcare professionals and education and pharmacotherapy are mainstays of NHS treatment and management. The greatest perceived unmet need in healthcare for people with fibromyalgia is a lack of available services. From the pooled qualitative data, three themes were developed: 'a troublesome label', 'a heavy burden' and 'a low priority'. Through the concept of candidacy, these themes provide insight into limited access to healthcare for people with fibromyalgia in the UK. CONCLUSION: This study highlights problems across the NHS in service provision and access for people with fibromyalgia, including several issues less commonly discussed; potential bias towards people with self-diagnosed fibromyalgia, challenges facing general practitioners seeking involvement of secondary care services for people with fibromyalgia, and a lack of mental health and multidisciplinary holistic services to support those affected. The need for new models of primary and community care that offer timely diagnosis, interventions to support self-management with access to specialist services if needed, is paramount.

Paragons, Mavericks and Innovators-A typology of orthopaedic surgeons' professional identities. A comparative case study of evidence-based practice.

Clinical guidelines, as vehicles for evidence-based practice (EBP) attempt to standardize health-care practice, reduce variation and increase quality. However, their use for surgery has been contested, and often resisted. This article examines professional responses to EBP in hip replacement surgery using data from case study observations and interviews in three English orthopaedic departments. A professional identity perspective is adopted to explain how standardization through EBP, represents an empirical phenomenon around which surgeons enact their identities as Paragons, Mavericks or Innovators, to enhance legitimacy and stratify themselves in their response to EBP. Attention is drawn to variation between Paragon surgeons working in university (teaching) hospitals and Maverick and Innovator types located in general hospitals, and the ways this interacts with adoption of EBP. The typology shows how practice variation is related to surgeons' tendencies to align to characteristic types, with distinct social processes, power and prestige, and which are in turn influenced by organizational context. The dynamics of EBP and professional identity continues to limit attempts to standardize surgical practice. The typology contributes to the understanding of failures to follow EBP, as associated with the identities individuals create and negotiate, and with identity narratives used to legitimize differing responses to EBP.

Advancing clinical leadership to improve the implementation of evidence-based practice in surgery: a longitudinal mixed-method study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical leadership is fundamental in facilitating service improvements in healthcare. Few studies have attempted to understand or model the different approaches to leadership which are used when promoting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based interventions. This research aims to uncover and explain how distributed clinical leadership can be developed and improved to enhance the use of evidence in practice. In doing so, this study examines implementation leadership in orthopaedic surgery to explain leadership as a collective endeavour which cannot be separated from the organisational context. METHODS: A mixed-method study consisting of longitudinal and cross-sectional interviews and an embedded social network analysis will be performed in six NHS hospitals. A social network analysis will be undertaken in each hospital to uncover the organisational networks, the focal leadership actors and information flows in each organisation. This will be followed by a series of repeated semi-structured interviews, conducted over 4 years, with orthopaedic surgeons and their professional networks. These longitudinal interviews will be supplemented by cross-sectional interviews with the national established surgical leaders. All qualitative data will be analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach and integrated with the quantitative data. The participant narratives will enrich the social network to uncover the leadership configurations which exist, and how different configurations of leadership are functioning in practice to influence implementation processes and outcomes. DISCUSSION: The study findings will facilitate understanding about how and why different configurations of leadership develop and under what organisational conditions and circumstances they are able to flourish. The study will guide the development of leadership interventions that are grounded in the data and aimed at advancing leadership for service improvement in orthopaedics. The strength of the study lies in the combination of multi-component, multi-site, multi-agent methods to examine leadership processes in surgery. The findings may be limited by the practical challenges of longitudinal qualitative data collection, such as ensuring participant retention, which need to be balanced against the theoretical and empirical insights generated through this comprehensive exploration of leadership across and within a range of healthcare organisations.

Why managing sciatica is difficult: patients' experiences of an NHS sciatica pathway. A qualitative, interpretative study.

OBJECTIVES: Amid a political agenda for integrated, high-value care, the UK is implementing its Low Back and Radicular Pain Pathway. To align care with need, it is imperative to understand the patients' perspective. The purpose of this study was, therefore, to explore how people experience being managed for sciatica within an National Health Service (NHS) pathway. DESIGN: Qualitative interpretative study. SETTING: Musculoskeletal Service in an NHS, Primary Care Trust, UK. PARTICIPANTS: The sample comprised 14 people aged ≥18 years with a clinical presentation of sciatica, who were currently under the care of a specialist physiotherapist (the specialist spinal triage practitioner), had undergone investigations (MRI) and received the results within the past 6 weeks. People were excluded if they had previously undergone spinal surgery or if the suspected cause of symptoms was cauda equina syndrome or sinister pathology. Participants were sampled purposively for variation in age and gender. Data were collected using individual semi-structured interviews (duration: 38-117 min; median: 82.6 min), which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: A series of problems with the local pathway (insufficient transparency and information; clinician-led decisions; standardised management; restricted access to specialist care; and a lack of collaboration between services) made it difficult for patients to access the management they perceived necessary. Patients were therefore required to be independent and proactive or have agency. This was, however, difficult to achieve (due to the impact of sciatica and because patients lacked the necessary skills, funds and support) and together with the pathway issues, this negated patients' capability to manage sciatica. CONCLUSIONS: This novel paper explores how patients experience the process of being managed within a sciatica pathway. While highlighting the need to align with recommended best practice, it shows the need to be more person-centred and to support and empower patient agency. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov reference (UOS-2307-CR); Pre-results.

Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting. BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality. DESIGN: The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes. METHODS: The study, conducted from 2015 to 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes. FINDINGS: Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance. CONCLUSION: The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting. BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality. DESIGN: The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes. METHODS: The study, conducted from 2015 - 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes. FINDINGS: Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance. CONCLUSION: The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to provide guidance to improve the completeness and clarity of meta-ethnography reporting. BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy and practice require robust evidence syntheses which can further understanding of people's experiences and associated social processes. Meta-ethnography is a rigorous seven-phase qualitative evidence synthesis methodology, developed by Noblit and Hare. Meta-ethnography is used widely in health research, but reporting is often poor quality and this discourages trust in and use of its findings. Meta-ethnography reporting guidance is needed to improve reporting quality. DESIGN: The eMERGe study used a rigorous mixed-methods design and evidence-based methods to develop the novel reporting guidance and explanatory notes. METHODS: The study, conducted from 2015 to 2017, comprised of: (1) a methodological systematic review of guidance for meta-ethnography conduct and reporting; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles; (3) international, multidisciplinary consensus-building processes to agree guidance content; (4) innovative development of the guidance and explanatory notes. FINDINGS: Recommendations and good practice for all seven phases of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting were newly identified leading to 19 reporting criteria and accompanying detailed guidance. CONCLUSION: The bespoke eMERGe Reporting Guidance, which incorporates new methodological developments and advances the methodology, can help researchers to report the important aspects of meta-ethnography. Use of the guidance should raise reporting quality. Better reporting could make assessments of confidence in the findings more robust and increase use of meta-ethnography outputs to improve practice, policy, and service user outcomes in health and other fields. This is the first tailored reporting guideline for meta-ethnography. This article is being simultaneously published in the following journals: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Psycho-oncology, Review of Education, and BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Discourses of joint commissioning.

Increasing attention has focused on the role of joint commissioning in health and social care policy and practice in England. This paper provides an empirical examination of the three discourses of joint commissioning developed from an interpretative analysis of documents by Dickinson et al. (2013; BMC Health Services Research, 13) and applied to data from our study exploring the role of knowledge in commissioning in England. Based on interviews with 92 participants undertaken between 2011 and 2013, our analysis confirms that the three discourses of prevention or empowerment or efficiency are used by professionals from across health and social care organisations to frame their experiences of joint commissioning. However, contrary to Dickinson et al., we also demonstrate that commissioners and other stakeholders combine and trade off these different discourses in unexpected ways. Moreover, at sites where the service user experience was central to the commissioning process (joint commissioning as empowerment), a greater sense of agreement about commissioning decisions appeared to have been established even when the other discourses were also in play.

Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE:  To assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies. DESIGN:  Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:  42 general practices in three areas of England. PARTICIPANTS:  Between 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score. INTERVENTIONS:  Intervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked. RESULTS:  50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic -2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -4.7 to -0.6 mm Hg), mean diastolic -2.8 (-4.0 to -1.6 mm Hg); weight -1.0 kg (-1.8 to -0.3 kg), and body mass index -0.4 ( -0.6 to -0.1) but not cholesterol -0.1 (-0.2 to 0.0), smoking status (adjusted odds ratio 0.4, 0.2 to 1.0), or overall cardiovascular risk as a continuous measure (-0.4, -1.2 to 0.3)). The intervention was associated with improvements in diet, physical activity, drug adherence, and satisfaction with access to care, treatment received, and care coordination. One serious related adverse event occurred, when a participant was admitted to hospital with low blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS:  This evidence based telehealth approach was associated with small clinical benefits for a minority of people with high cardiovascular risk, and there was no overall improvement in average risk. The Healthlines service was, however, associated with improvements in some risk behaviours, and in perceptions of support and access to care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 27508731.

Eliciting symptoms interpreted as normal by patients with early-stage lung cancer: could GP elicitation of normalised symptoms reduce delay in diagnosis? Cross-sectional interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate why symptoms indicative of early-stage lung cancer (LC) were not presented to general practitioners (GPs) and how early symptoms might be better elicited within primary care. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative cross-sectional interview study about symptoms and help-seeking in 20 patients from three south England counties, awaiting resection of LC (suspected or histologically confirmed). Analysis drew on principles of discourse analysis and constant comparison to identify processes involved in interpretation and communication about symptoms, and explain non-presentation. RESULTS: Most participants experienced health changes possibly indicative of LC which had not been presented during GP consultations. Symptoms that were episodic, or potentially caused by ageing or lifestyle, were frequently not presented to GPs. In interviews, open questions about health changes/symptoms in general did not elicit these symptoms; they only emerged in response to closed questions detailing specific changes in health. Questions using disease-related labels, for example, pain or breathlessness, were less likely to elicit symptoms than questions that used non-disease terminology, such as aches, discomfort or 'getting out of breath'. Most participants described themselves as feeling well and were reluctant to associate potentially explained, non-specific or episodic symptoms with LC, even after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with early LC are unlikely to present symptoms possibly indicative of LC that they associate with normal processes, when attending primary care before diagnosis. Faced with patients at high LC risk, GPs will need to actively elicit potential LC symptoms not presented by the patient. Closed questions using non-disease terminology might better elicit normalised symptoms.

Pesquisa qualitativa na atenção à saúde / Qualitative research in health care

Oferece uma introdução clara e acessível à condução e à interpretação da pesquisa qualitativa. A obra apresenta novas informações sobre ética na pesquisa qualitativa, auxiliando na avaliação da qualidade e na utilização dos métodos qualitativos nos diferentes estilos de pesquisa e na emergente área da síntese de pesquisa.

Patients' help-seeking experiences and delay in cancer presentation: a qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The reduction of delay in cancer diagnosis has been targeted as a way to improve survival. We undertook a qualitative synthesis of international research evidence to provide insight into patients' experiences of recognising symptoms of cancer and seeking help. METHODS: We searched international publications (1985-2004) for delay in cancer diagnosis to identify the relevant qualitative research, and used meta-ethnography to identify the common themes across the studies. Our synthesis interpreted individual studies by identification of second-order constructs (interpretations offered by the original researchers) and third-order constructs (development of new interpretations beyond those offered in individual studies). FINDINGS: We identified 32 papers (>775 patients and carers) reporting help-seeking experiences for at least 20 different types of cancer. The analysis showed strong similarities in patients with different cancer types. Key concepts were recognition and interpretation of symptoms, and fear of consultation. Fear manifested as a fear of embarrassment (the feeling that symptoms were trivial or that symptoms affected a sensitive body area), or a fear of cancer (pain, suffering, and death), or both. Such analyses allowed exploration of third-order constructs. The patient's gender and the sanctioning of help-seeking were important factors in prompt consultation. INTERPRETATION: Strategies to understand and reduce patients' delay in cancer presentation can help symptom recognition but need to address patients' anxieties. The effect of the patient's sex in help-seeking also needs to be recognised, as does the important role of friends, family, and health-care professionals in the sanctioning of consultation. This meta-ethnography provides an international overview through the systematic synthesis of a diverse group of small-scale qualitative studies.