"We have to change our mindsets": a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators in research collaboration across integrated care system organisations.

The introduction of Integrated Care Systems (ICS) in England aimed to increase joint planning and delivery of health and social care, and other services, to better meet the needs of local communities. There is an associated duty to undertake collaborative research across ICS partners to inform this new integrated approach, which might be challenging given that organisations span health, local authority, voluntary and community sector, and research. This study aimed to explore the appetite for collaborative Research and Innovation (R&I) across ICSs, potential barriers and solutions. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 24 stakeholders who held senior positions within organisations across two ICS areas (Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent; Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin). Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive and deductive analysis, first mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), then considering key influences on organisational behaviour in terms of Capability, Opportunity and Motivation from the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. There were fundamental limitations on organisational opportunities for collaborative R&I: a historical culture of competition (rather than collaboration), a lack of research culture and prioritisation, compounded by a challenging adverse economic environment. However, organisations were motivated to undertake collaborative R&I. They recognised the potential benefits (e.g., skill-sharing, staff development, attracting large studies and funding), the need for collaborative research that mirrors integrated care, and subsequent benefits for care recipients. Related barriers included negative experiences of collaboration, fear of failing and low confidence. Capability varied across organisations in terms of research skills and confidence, which reflected the range of partners (from local authorities to NHS Trusts, primary care, and academic institutions). These findings indicate a need to shift from a culture of competition to collaboration, and to help organisations across ICS to prioritise research, and share resources and skills to mitigate the limiting effects of a constrained economic environment. This could be further explored using a systems change approach, to develop the collaborative research efforts alongside the overarching move towards integrated care.

Momentary mood response to natural outdoor environments in four European cities.

Exposure to natural outdoor environments (NOE) has been shown in population-level studies to reduce anxiety and psychological distress. This study investigated how exposure to one's everyday natural outdoor environments over one week influenced mood among residents of four European cities including Barcelona (Spain), Stoke-on-Trent (United Kingdom), Doetinchem (The Netherlands) and Kaunas (Lithuania). Participants (n = 368) wore a smartphone equipped with software applications to track location and mood (using mobile ecological momentary assessment (EMA) software), for seven consecutive days. We estimated random-effects ordered logistic regression models to examine the association between mood (positive and negative affect), and exposure to green space, represented by two binary variables indicating exposure versus no exposure to NOE using GPS tracking and satellite and aerial imagery, 10 and 30 min prior to participants' completing the EMA. Models were adjusted for home city, day of the week, hour of the day, EMA survey type, residential NOE exposure, and sex, age, education level, mental health status and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. In addition, we tested for heterogeneity of effect by city, sex, age, residential NOE exposure and mental health status. Within 10 min of NOE exposure, compared to non-exposure, we found that overall there was a positive relationship with positive affect (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.81) of EMA surveys, and non-significant negative association with negative affect (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.58, 1.10). When stratifying, associations were consistently found for Stoke-on-Trent inhabitants and men, while findings by age group were inconsistent. Weaker and less consistent associations were found for exposure 30 min prior to EMA. Our findings support increasing evidence of psychological and mental health benefits of exposure to natural outdoor environments, especially among urban populations such as those included in our study.