Understanding joy amongst older people: A scoping review.

To date there has been little focus on the concept of joy amongst older people in the literature. The objective of this scoping review was to understand the extent and type of evidence about joy and older people. Searches were run in ten databases in January 2022 (re-run January 2023). Eligible studies included people aged 65 and over living in their usual place of residence and described the experience or evaluation of joy. Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We included 11 papers reporting both qualitative (n = 5) and quantitative (n = 6) studies involving 1,487 participants with a mean age of 81.6 years. Seven of the studies were based in care or nursing homes with four in community settings. Five studies reported the experience of joy, three reported on the assessment of joy, and three examined the association between joy and other factors. Social connections and participation in activities that are meaningful to the individual are important sources of joy. Joy amongst older people has received little attention in the literature despite it being highlighted as being important to older people themselves in relation to their health and wellbeing.

Addressing inequitable access to hospice care.

The 'Lancet Commission on the Value of Death' proposes radical change and challenges the very core of hospice service provision. Without action, inequalities in access to hospice care will continue to be amplified. The COVID-19 pandemic brought increased needs and demands in the community setting but also provided opportunities for new palliative partnerships and ways of working. Returning to the status quo should not be an option. Rather moving towards a shared vision and purpose, which has the person and their community network at its centre, enables hospices to have a pivotal role and bring about more equitable palliative care.

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices: A systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice.

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the development of numerous recommendations for practice and policy for specialist palliative care provided by hospices in United Kingdom (UK), as hospices were significantly affected by the pandemic and protections put in place.The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise recommendations or implications for policy and practice that have been generated for adult hospice specialist palliative care during the first 24 months of the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers, as well as hand searchers for grey literature. Literature relating to hospices and Covid-19 in the UK were included and a thematic synthesis of recommendations for hospice policy and practice was undertaken. Results: 858 articles were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight recommendations or implications were identified: 31 for policy, 27 for practice, and 10 covering both. Recommendations were organised under ten themes. There were several recommendations seeking to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short-term impact of the pandemic, as well as those focused on longer-term implications such as core funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services. Conclusion: The Covid-19 pandemic and protections exposed several ongoing policy and practice needs, especially around hospice resources, while generating novel issues for hospices to address. Significant policy gaps remain to be addressed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice specialist palliative care.

Hospices in the UK faced many challenges during the first two-years of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this time several research studies and reviews took place that provided hospices with recommendations for how to adapt their policies and clinical practices. In this review we identified 12 documents that contained 58 recommendations for hospices' policy and practice. We grouped these recommendations together under ten key themes. We found that there were several recommendations aiming to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short and longer-term impacts upon hospice funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services.

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.

Involving Patients in Health Economics Research: "The PACTS Principles".

Discussion of public and patient involvement (PPI) in health economics (HE) research is growing. There is much literature on PPI principles and standards, but little specifically regarding involving patients in HE research. Here, we outline "PACTS", a set of principles, developed with a PPI group, for considering patient involvement in HE research. Planning: Involvement is best built in to research plans from the outset. This includes setting specific goals for involvement activities, and clearly communicating the background and purpose of involvement. Approach selection: We describe two main approaches to involvement-discussion-based and task-based. Discussion-based approaches are useful for generating broad insights and revealing "unknown unknowns". Task-based approaches offer a more focused means of shedding light on "known unknowns". Continuous involvement: Involving patients throughout the research process and across a range of projects helps build expertise for patients and insight for HE researchers. Team building: Meaningful involvement creates a shared sense of ownership of the research and, over time, helps to develop a team ethos, enhancing the positive impacts of involvement. Sensitivity: HE research can be perceived as technical and impersonal. Addressing this requires sensitivity, clarity, and an honest and open approach. There is increased recognition that patient contributors are experts at providing a "lived experience" perspective, in the way that clinicians are experts at providing an overview of conditions and HEs are experts in the methodology of their discipline. We hope these "PACTS Principles" complement existing PPI approaches and provide a useful foundation for health economists considering patient involvement.

What do we know about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on hospices? A collaborative multi-stakeholder knowledge synthesis.

Background: Prior to undertaking a study looking at the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic upon lived experiences of hospice services in the West Midlands, we sought to identify the range of issues that hospice service users and providers faced between March 2020 and July 2021, and to provide a report that can be accessed and understood by all interested stakeholders. Methods: We undertook a collaborative multi-stakeholder approach for scoping the range of potential issues and synthesising knowledge. This involved a review of available literature; a focus group with hospice stakeholders; and a collaborative knowledge exchange panel. Results: The literature on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospices remains limited, but it is developing a picture of a service that has had to rapidly adapt the way it provides care and support to its service users, during a period when it faced many fundamental challenges to established ways of providing these services. Results: The impacts of many of the changes on hospices have not been fully assessed. It is also not known what the effects upon the quality of care and support are for those with life-limiting conditions and those that care for them. We found that the pandemic has presented a new normative and service context in which quality of care and life itself was valued that is, as yet, poorly understood.

Involving Members of the Public in Health Economics Research: Insights from Selecting Health States for Valuation to Estimate Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) Weights.

Over recent years, public involvement in health research has expanded considerably. However, public involvement in designing and conducting health economics research is seldom reported. Here we describe the development, delivery and assessment of an approach for involving people in a clearly defined piece of health economics research: selecting health states for valuation in estimating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This involvement formed part of a study to develop a condition-specific preference-based measure of health-related quality of life, the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-8D), and the work reported here relates to the identification of plausible, or realistic, health states for valuation. An Expert Panel of three people with multiple sclerosis (MS) was recruited from a local involvement network, and two health economists designed an interactive task that enabled the Panel to identify health states that were implausible, or unlikely to be experienced. Following some initial confusion over terminology, which was resolved by discussion with the Panel, the task worked well and can be adapted to select health states for valuation in the development of any preference-based measure. As part of the involvement process, five themes were identified by the Panel members and the researchers which summarised our experiences of public involvement in this health economics research example: proportionality, task design, prior involvement, protectiveness and partnerships. These are described in the paper, along with their practical implications for involving members of the public in health economics research. Our experience demonstrates how members of the public and health economists can work together to improve the validity of health economics research. Plain Language Summary It has become commonplace to involve members of the public in health service research. However, published reports of involving people in designing health economics research are rare. We describe how we designed a way of involving people in a particular piece of health economics research.The aim of the work was to produce descriptions of different states of health experienced by people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These descriptions have since been rated in terms of how good or bad they are in a way that can be used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to make decisions about what services to fund on the NHS.We formed a panel of three people with MS, and designed a task to help the group produce health descriptions likely to be experienced by people with MS. After discussion about jargon, and working together to find more layman's terms, the task worked well, and can be adapted to produce health descriptions for any condition.We identified some key themes about working together that give insights into how members of the public can be involved in health economics research, and show the importance of their involvement in improving the relevance of this research.