The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Epistemic justice in public involvement and engagement: Creating conditions for impact.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement in research is anchored in moral and epistemological rationales. Moral rationales relate to the public having a right to influence how knowledge about them is generated. Epistemological rationales relate to how research design and implementation can improve when informed by experiential, as well as technical, knowledge. In other words, public involvement can increase the epistemological resources of researchers, and contribute to research that is fit for purpose and has high external validity. METHODS: This article presents an analysis of 3 meetings and 11 interviews with public collaborators and researchers in three UK-based health research studies. Data comprised transcripts of audio-recorded research meetings and interviews with public collaborators and researchers. Data were first analysed to develop a data-informed definition of experiential knowledge, then thematically to investigate how this experiential knowledge was considered and received within the research space. RESULTS: At meetings, public collaborators shared their experiential knowledge as stories, comments, questions, answers and when referring to their own roles. They were aware of crossing a boundary from everyday life, and some adapted their contributions to fit within the research space. Although researchers and public collaborators made efforts to create an inclusive climate, obstacles to impact were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Considering experiential knowledge as a boundary object highlights that this knowledge has a different form to other kinds of knowledge that contribute to research. To enable impact from experiential knowledge, researchers need to create a space where public collaborators experience epistemic justice. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Peninsula Public Engagement Group (PenPEG) was involved in the planning and conceptualization of the study, including the development of the ethics application and the interview schedules. One member of this group (Richard Fitzgerald) and one from outside the group (Leon Farmer), were full members of the author team and were involved in the data analysis. Leon Farmer has since become a member of PenPEG. Richard Fitzgerald and Leon Farmer were not involved in the three research studies sampled for this study. Sadly Richard Fitzgerald died during the course of this study.

A multi-stakeholder approach to the co-production of the research agenda for medicines optimisation.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of medicines are not used as intended, resulting in poor health and economic outcomes. Medicines optimisation is 'a person-centred approach to safe and effective medicines use, to ensure people obtain the best possible outcomes from their medicines'. The purpose of this exercise was to co-produce a prioritised research agenda for medicines optimisation using a multi-stakeholder (patient, researcher, public and health professionals) approach. METHODS: A three-stage, multiple method process was used including: generation of preliminary research questions (Stage 1) using a modified Nominal Group Technique; electronic consultation and ranking with a wider multi-stakeholder group (Stage 2); a face-to-face, one-day consensus meeting involving representatives from all stakeholder groups (Stage 3). RESULTS: In total, 92 research questions were identified during Stages 1 and 2 and ranked in order of priority during stage 3. Questions were categorised into four areas: 'Patient Concerns' [e.g. is there a shared decision (with patients) about using each medicine?], 'Polypharmacy' [e.g. how to design health services to cope with the challenge of multiple medicines use?], 'Non-Medical Prescribing' [e.g. how can the contribution of non-medical prescribers be optimised in primary care?], and 'Deprescribing' [e.g. what support is needed by prescribers to deprescribe?]. A significant number of the 92 questions were generated by Patient and Public Involvement representatives, which demonstrates the importance of including this stakeholder group when identifying research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of research questions was generated reflecting concerns which affect patients, practitioners, the health service, as well the ethical and philosophical aspects of the prescribing and deprescribing of medicines. These questions should be used to set future research agendas and funding commissions.

Epistemic injustices in clinical communication: the example of narrative elicitation in person-centred care.

The increasing popularity of the term 'person-centred' in the healthcare literature and a wide range of ideals and practices it implies point to the need for a more inclusive and holistic healthcare provision. A framework developed in a Swedish context suggested narrative elicitation as a key practice in transition to person-centred care. Initiating clinical communication by inviting people to tell their stories makes persistent yet often subtle problems in clinical communication visible. By drawing upon an observational study on narrative elicitation and vignette-based focus group interviews with nurses, our aim is to trace 'credibility deficits' (Fricker 2007. Epistemic Injustice. Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press) and 'credibility excesses' (Medina 2011, Social Epistemology, 25, 1, 15-35, 2013, The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and the Social Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press) in narrative elicitation. We argue that narrative elicitation may be one way to tackle epistemic injustices by giving voice to previously silenced groups, yet it is not enough to erase the effects of 'credibility deficits' in clinical communication. Rather than judging individual professionals' success or failure in eliciting narratives, we underline some extrinsic problems of narrative elicitation, namely structural and positional inequalities reflecting on narrative elicitation and the credibility of patients. 'Credibility excesses' can be useful and indicative to better understand where they are missing.

The value of social practice theory for implementation science: learning from a theory-based mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although there is trial evidence that complex interventions are effective for the self-management of heart failure, little evidence supports their effectiveness in routine practice. We used Social Practice Theory to guide a Type 1 Hybrid Trial: a mixed methods process evaluation of a complex intervention for heart failure. The objective of this paper is to explore the value of Social Practice Theory for implementation science. METHODS: Social Practice Theory informed a mixed methods process evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a 12 week home-based intervention to optimise self-care support for people with heart failure and their caregivers - Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF). Interviews were conducted with 19 people with heart failure and 17 caregivers at 4 months and 12 months after recruitment into the trial. Cases were constructed at the level of the individual, couple, facilitator and centre; and included multi-modal process and outcome data. Evaluative coding and subsequent within- and cross-case analyses enabled the development of a typology of relationships linking fidelity of intervention delivery and tailoring of content to individual needs and concerns. Social Practice Theory was used to interrogate the relationships between elements of the intervention and their implementation. RESULTS: Of 216 trial participants, 107 were randomised to the intervention (REACH-HF plus usual care). The intervention was most effective when fidelity was high and delivery was tailored to the individual's needs, but less effective when both tailoring and fidelity were low. Theory-based analysis enabled us to model complex relationships between intervention elements (competencies, materials and meanings) and social context. The findings illustrate how intervention fidelity and tailoring are contextual and how the effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention depended on both optimal alignment and implementation of these elements. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the utility of theory-based analysis which integrates data from multiple sources to highlight contexts and circumstances in which interventions work best. Social Practice Theory provides a framework for guiding and analysing the processes by which a complex intervention is evaluated in a clinical trial, and has the potential to guide context-specific implementation strategies for clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, IISRCTN86234930 . Registered 13th November 2014.

How is knowledge shared in Public involvement? A qualitative study of involvement in a health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in research is seen as a quality marker by funders. To understand the process and impact of involvement, more in-depth studies are needed on how members of the public contribute in meetings with researchers. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to observe and reflect on what is said by public advisers in involvement. We wanted to understand (a) what knowledge and experience is shared during research meetings, and (b) how this knowledge is shared with researchers. METHODS: Data were collected in November 2016 as part of the public involvement in a health technology assessment of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Three meetings were audio recorded and observed with the purpose of understanding how members of the public contributed during the meetings. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analysed using a thematic approach, with the coding framework developed inductively. We also included reflections from a community drop-in session. RESULTS: Members of the public brought three different 'sources' of knowledge and experience to meetings with researchers: direct lived personal experience; learnt knowledge; and the experience and values of others. The data suggest that group settings allow for dynamic discussions and sharing of different types of knowledge. CONCLUSION: Group-based involvement meetings allow for the synergistic combination of individual knowledge and experience. This gives researchers a broader understanding of the topic, which can be the vehicle for patient impact on the research. A combination of group meeting and community drop-in can enable more varied input into research planning and conduct.

The potential and pitfalls of narrative elicitation in person-centred care.

BACKGROUND: Revitalized interest in narrative has informed some recent models of patient and person-centred care. Yet, scarce attention has been paid to how narrative elicitation is actually used in person-centred care practice and in which ways it is incorporated into clinical routine. AIM: We aimed to identify facilitators and barriers for narrative elicitation and setting goals in a particular example of person-centred care practice (University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-centred Care, GPCC) where narrative elicitation is considered as a method of setting goals for the patient. METHODS: Observation of 14 admission interviews including narrative elicitation on an internal medicine ward in Sweden where person-centred care was implemented. Five focus group vignette-based interviews with nurses (n = 53) were conducted to assess confirmation of the emerging themes. RESULTS: The inductive analysis resulted in three themes about the strategies to elicit patients' narratives: (a) Preparing for narrative elicitation, (b) Lingering in the patient's narrative, and (c) Co-creating, that is, the practitioner's and third parties' engagement in the patient's narration. Even though there were obstacles to eliciting narratives and setting lifeworld goals in a medical setting, narrative elicitation was often useful to turn general and medical goals into more specific and personal goals. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative elicitation is neither a simple transition from traditional medical history taking nor a type of structured interview. It entails skills and strategies to be practiced. On the one hand, it revitalizes ethical considerations about clinical relationship building. On the other hand, it can help patients articulate lifeworld goals that are meaningful and important for themselves.

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 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.

Refining a model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar, schizophrenia or other psychoses in England: a qualitative formative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Additional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95702682 , 26 October 2017.

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.

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.

BACKGROUND: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. METHOD: A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching. RESULTS: Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. CONCLUSIONS: Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Patient involvement in qualitative data analysis in a trial of a patient-centred intervention: Reconciling lay knowledge and scientific method.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a pilot study of an intervention to facilitate patients' agenda setting in clinical consultations. The primary aim of the study was to test the feasibility of running the randomized controlled trial. A secondary objective was to assess the extent to which patient and public involvement (PPI) could contribute to the process of qualitative data analysis (QDA). AIMS: To describe a novel approach to including patient partners in QDA; to illustrate the kinds of contribution that patient partners made to QDA in this context; and to propose a characterization of a process by which patient involvement can contribute to knowledge production. METHODS: Six patient and public representatives were supported to contribute to data analysis via a range of modalities. During a series of QDA workshops, experienced research staff role-played consultations and interviews, and provided vignettes. Workshop data and PPI diaries were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. RESULTS: We characterized a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This PPI group contributed to the rigour and validity of the study findings by challenging their own and the researchers' assumptions, and by testing the emerging hypotheses. By training PPI representatives to undertake qualitative data analysis, we transformed our understanding of doctor-patient consultations. CONCLUSIONS: This research required changes to our usual research practices but was in keeping with the objective of establishing meaningful patient involvement for a future definitive trial. This work was informed by concepts of critical humility, and a process of knowledge production enabled via the construction of a knowledge space.

Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Many people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals' perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing. METHODS: Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals' views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work. RESULTS: Four hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice. CONCLUSION: The findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy.

'You're there because you are unprofessional': patient and public involvement as liminal knowledge spaces.

Patient and public involvement in health research and care has been repeatedly theorised using the metaphor of spaces, knowledge spaces and participatory citizenship spaces. Drawing on data from a three year qualitative study of people involved in health research with organisations across England, this article explores where these spaces fit in a wider social, political and historical landscape. It outlines a theme recurring frequently in the study data: a unified public/patient/service-user perspective in opposition to a professional/clinical/academic view. This is discussed in relation to Habermas's division between the lifeworld and system. Patient and public involvement is mapped as spaces between these spheres, therefore between the social norms pertaining to them. In this way, involvement spaces are seen as liminal, in-between or threshold spaces; this concept provides us with new insights on both the opportunities and the conflicts that are integral in the ambiguous, complex interactions which take place in these spaces.

Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing literature on evaluating aspects of patient and public involvement (PPI). We have suggested that at the core of successful PPI is the dynamic interaction of different forms of knowledge, notably lay and professional. We have developed a four-dimensional theoretical framework for understanding these interactions. AIM: We explore the practical utility of the theoretical framework as a tool for mapping and evaluating the experience of PPI in health services research. METHODS: We conducted three workshops with different PPI groups in which participants were invited to map their PPI experiences on wall charts representing the four dimensions of our framework. The language used to describe the four dimensions was modified to make it more accessible to lay audiences. Participants were given sticky notes to indicate their own positions on the different dimensions and to write explanatory comments if they wished. Participants' responses were then discussed and analysed as a group. RESULTS: The three groups were distinctive in their mapped responses suggesting different experiences in relation to having a strong or weak voice in their organization, having few or many ways of getting involved, addressing organizational or public concerns and believing that the organization was willing to change or not. DISCUSSION: The framework has practical utility for mapping and evaluating PPI interactions and is sensitive to differences in PPI experiences within and between different organizations. The workshops enabled participants to reflect collaboratively on their experiences with a view to improving PPI experiences and planning for the future.

Elaboration of the Gothenburg model of person-centred care.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) is increasingly advocated as a new way of delivering health care, but there is little evidence that it is widely practised. The University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC) was set up in 2010 to develop and implement person-centred care in clinical practice on the basis of three routines. These routines are based on eliciting the patient's narrative to initiate a partnership; working the partnership to achieve commonly agreed goals; and using documentation to safeguard the partnership and record the person's narrative and shared goals. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aimed to explore professionals' understanding of PCC routines as they implement the GPCC model in a range of different settings. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study and interviewed 18 clinician-researchers from five health-care professions who were working in seven diverse GPCC projects. RESULTS: Interviewees' accounts of PCC emphasized the ways in which persons are seen as different from patients; the variable emphasis placed on the person's goals; and the role of the person's own resources in building partnerships. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates what is needed for health-care professionals to implement PCC in everyday practice: the recognition of the person is as important as the specific practical routines. Interviewees described the need to change the clinical mindset and to develop the ways of integrating people's narratives with clinical practice.

Deliberate and emergent strategies for implementing person-centred care: a qualitative interview study with researchers, professionals and patients.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of innovative models of healthcare does not necessarily mean that they become embedded in everyday clinical practice. This study has two aims: first, to analyse deliberate and emergent strategies adopted by healthcare professionals to overcome barriers to normalization of a specific framework of person-centred care (PCC); and secondly, to explore how the recipients of PCC understand these strategies. METHODS: This paper is based on a qualitative study of the implementation of PCC in a Swedish context. It draws on semi-structured interviews with 18 researchers and 17 practitioners who adopted a model of PCC on four different wards and 20 patients who were cared for in one of these wards. Data from these interviews were first coded inductively and emerging themes are analysed in relation to normalization process theory (NPT). RESULTS: In addition to deliberate strategies, we identify emergent strategies to normalize PCC by (i) creating and sustaining coherence in small but continuously communicating groups (ii) interpreting PCC flexibly when it meets specific local situations and (iii) enforcing teamwork between professional groups. These strategies resulted in patients perceiving PCC as bringing about (i) a sense of ease (ii) appreciation of inter-professional congruity (ii) non-hierarchical communication. CONCLUSION: NPT is useful to identify and analyse deliberate and emergent strategies relating to mechanisms of normalization. Emergent strategies should be interpreted not as trivial solutions to problems in implementation, but as a possible repertoire of tools, practices and skills developed in situ. As professionals and patients may have different understandings of implementation, it is also crucial to include patients' perceptions to evaluate outcomes.

Collaborative action for person-centred coordinated care (P3C): an approach to support the development of a comprehensive system-wide solution to fragmented care.

BACKGROUND: Fragmented care results in poor outcomes for individuals with complexity of need. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is perceived to be a potential solution, but an absence of accessible evidence and the lack of a scalable 'blue print' mean that services are 'experimenting' with new models of care with little guidance and support. This paper presents an approach to the implementation of P3C using collaborative action, providing examples of early developments across this programme of work, the core aim of which is to accelerate the spread and adoption of P3C in United Kingdom primary care settings. METHODS: Two centrally funded United Kingdom organisations (South West Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and South West Academic Health Science Network) are leading this initiative to narrow the gap between research and practice in this urgent area of improvement through a programme of service change, evaluation and research. Multi-stakeholder engagement and co-design are core to the approach. A whole system measurement framework combines outcomes of importance to patients, practitioners and health organisations. Iterative and multi-level feedback helps to shape service change while collecting practice-based data to generate implementation knowledge for the delivery of P3C. The role of the research team is proving vital to support informed change and challenge organisational practice. The bidirectional flow of knowledge and evidence relies on the transitional positioning of researchers and research organisations. RESULTS: Extensive engagement and embedded researchers have led to strong collaborations across the region. Practice is beginning to show signs of change and data flow and exchange is taking place. However, working in this way is not without its challenges; progress has been slow in the development of a linked data set to allow us to assess impact innovations from a cost perspective. Trust is vital, takes time to establish and is dependent on the exchange of services and interactions. If collaborative action can foster P3C it will require sustained commitment from both research and practice. This approach is a radical departure from how policy, research and practice traditionally work, but one that we argue is now necessary to deal with the most complex health and social problems.

Asking More of Qualitative Synthesis: A Response to Sally Thorne.

We continue the conversation initiated by Sally Thorne's observations about "metasynthetic madness." We note that the variety of labels used to describe qualitative syntheses often reflect authors' disciplines and geographical locations. The purpose of systematic literature searching is to redress authors' lack of citation of relevant earlier work and to reassure policy makers that qualitative syntheses are systematic and transparent. There is clearly a need to develop other methods of searching to supplement electronic searches. If searches produce large numbers of articles, sampling strategies may be needed to choose which articles to synthesize. The quality of any synthesis is dependent on the quality of the primary articles; both primary research and qualitative synthesis need to move beyond description and toward theory and explanation. Synthesizers need to pay attention to those articles which do not seem to fit their emerging analysis if they are to avoid stifling new ideas.