Implementing resources to support the diagnosis and management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) in primary care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has highlighted that many GPs lack the confidence and knowledge to diagnose and manage people with CFS/ME. Following the development of an online training module for GPs, and an information pack and DVD for patients, this study explored the extent to which these resources can be implemented in routine primary care. METHODS: Semi structured qualitative interviews were completed with patients and GPs across North West England. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using open exploratory thematic coding. Following this thematic analysis, the authors conducted a further theory-driven analysis of the data guided by Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: When used in line with advice from the research team, the information resource and training were perceived as beneficial to both patients and GPs in the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME. However, 47 % of patients in this study did not receive the information pack from their GP. When the information pack was used, it was often incomplete, sent in the post, and GPs did not work with patients to discuss the materials. Only13 out of 21 practices completed the training module due to time pressures and the low priority placed on low prevalence, contentious, hard to manage conditions. When the module was completed, many GPs stated that it was not feasible to retain the key messages as they saw so few patients with the condition. Due to the complexity of the condition, GPs also believed that the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME should take place in a specialist care setting. CONCLUSION: While barriers to the implementation of training and resources for CFS/ME remain, there is a need to support CFS/ME patients to access reliable, evidence based information outside primary care. Our findings suggest that future research should develop an online resource for patients to support self-management.

Overcoming the barriers to the diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME in primary care: a meta synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: The NICE guideline for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) emphasises the need for an early diagnosis in primary care with management tailored to patient needs. However, GPs can be reluctant to make a diagnosis and are unsure how to manage people with the condition. METHODS: A meta synthesis of published qualitative studies was conducted, producing a multi-perspective description of barriers to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME, and the ways that some health professionals have been able to overcome them. Analysis provided second-order interpretation of the original findings and developed third-order constructs to provide recommendations for the medical curriculum. RESULTS: Twenty one qualitative studies were identified. The literature shows that for over 20 years health professionals have reported a limited understanding of CFS/ME. Working within the framework of the biomedical model has also led some GPs to be sceptical about the existence of the condition. GPs who provide a diagnosis tend to have a broader, multifactorial, model of the condition and more positive attitudes towards CFS/ME. These GPs collaborate with patients to reach agreement on symptom management, and use their therapeutic skills to promote self care. CONCLUSIONS: In order to address barriers to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME in primary care, the limitations of the biomedical model needs to be recognised. A more flexible bio-psychosocial approach is recommended where medical school training aims to equip practitioners with the skills needed to understand, support and manage patients and provide a pathway to refer for specialist input.

What factors are associated with informal carers' psychological morbidity during end-of-life home care? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of observational quantitative studies.

Background: Family carers are central in supporting patients nearing end of life. As a consequence, they often suffer detrimental impacts on their own mental health. Understanding what factors may affect carers' mental health is important in developing strategies to maintain their psychological well-being during caregiving. Aim: To conduct a systematic review and thematic evidence synthesis of factors related to carers' mental health during end-of-life caregiving. Method: Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects 1 January 2009-24 November 2019. We included observational quantitative studies focusing on adult informal/family carers for adult patients at end of life cared for at home considering any factor related to carer mental health (anxiety, depression, distress and quality of life) pre-bereavement. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used. Thematic analysis with box score presentation, and meta-analysis were done where data permitted. Results: Findings from 63 included studies underpinned seven emergent themes. Patient condition (31 studies): worse patient psychological symptoms and quality of life were generally associated with worse carer mental health. Patient depression was associated with higher depression in carers (standardised mean difference = 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.87, I2 = 77%). Patients' other symptoms and functional impairment may relate to carer mental health, but findings were unclear. Impact of caring responsibilities (14 studies): impact on carers' lives, task difficulty and general burden had clear associations with worse carer mental health. Relationships (8 studies): family dynamics and the quality of the carer-patient relationship may be important for carer mental health and are worthy of further investigation. Finance (6 studies): insufficient resources may relate to carers' mental health and warrant further study. Carers' psychological processes (13 studies): self-efficacy and preparedness were related to better mental health. However, findings regarding coping strategies were mixed. Support (18 studies): informal support given by family and friends may relate to better carer mental health, but evidence on formal support is limited. Having unmet needs was related to worse mental health, while satisfaction with care was related to better mental health. Contextual factors (16 studies): older age was generally associated with better carer mental health and being female was associated with worse mental health. Limitations: Studies were mainly cross-sectional (56) rather than longitudinal (7) which raises questions about the likely causal direction of relationships. One-third of studies had samples < 100, so many had limited statistical power to identify existing relationships. Conclusions and future work: Future work must adopt a comprehensive approach to improving carers' mental health because factors relating to carer mental health cover a broad spectrum. The literature on this topic is diverse and difficult to summarise, and the field would benefit from a clearer direction of enquiry guided by explanatory models. Future research should (1) further investigate quality of relationships and finances; (2) better define factors under investigation; (3) establish, through quantitative causal analyses, why factors might relate to mental health; and (4) utilise longitudinal designs more to aid understanding of likely causal direction of associations. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO registration 2019 CRD42019130279 at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme HSDR 18/01/01 and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Family carers are central in supporting patients nearing end of life. However, their own mental health may often suffer as a result. It is important to understand what makes carers' mental health better or worse, to support them appropriately and help them stay in good health. To synthesise what is known about what can affect carers' mental health during end-of-life caregiving. We identified research literature (1 January 2009­24 November 2019) that looked at factors that may make carers' mental health better or worse when supporting someone nearing end of life. We focused on adult carers of adult patients cared for at home. Researchers worked with the help of a carer Review Advisory Panel to group similar factors into themes. This report presents research that used numerical measurements (for instance, surveys) to investigate factors related to carers' mental health. Findings from 63 studies were grouped into seven themes: (1) How the patient was: worse patient mental health and quality of life related to worse carer mental health. (2) How much caregiving affected carers' lives: greater impact, burden and feeling tasks were difficult related to worse mental health. (3) Relationships: good relationships between family members and between carer and patient seemed important for carer mental health. (4) Finance: having insufficient resources may affect carers' mental health. (5) Carers' internal processes (carers' thoughts and feelings): feeling confident and prepared for caregiving related to better mental health. (6) Support: carers' mental health seemed related to support given by family and friends and to getting sufficient, satisfactory support from formal services. (7) Background factors: older carers seemed generally to have better mental health, and female carers worse mental health overall. Factors that may affect carers' mental health are many and varied. We therefore need a broad strategy to help carers stay in good mental health during caregiving.

Understanding what affects psychological morbidity in informal carers when providing care at home for patients at the end of life: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis.

Background: Informal carers are central in supporting patients at the end of life, but this has substantial negative impacts on carers' own mental health. When carers are unable to cope, this may affect their ability to support the patient and increase the likelihood of patient hospital admissions. Further, demographic changes mean demands for care at and before end of life are increasing and existing services will struggle to meet these demands. It is important to recognise carers as a vital resource and prevent adverse health outcomes from caregiving (and thereby limit their consequences). Large individual variation in the level of psychological morbidity from end-of-life caregiving suggests there is scope for interventions to improve carer mental health if we can understand the underlying factors. Objectives: This meta-synthesis of qualitative studies aims to identify factors reported by carers as important to their mental health. Data sources: Searches of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Qualitative Reviews 1 January 2009 to 24 November 2019 for empirical publications from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in English/Scandinavian on factors affecting adult carer mental health during end-of-life caregiving in home settings. Review methods: Systematic qualitative meta-synthesis in collaboration with a Public Patient Involvement carer Review Advisory Panel, included thematic synthesis, followed by a best-fit framework synthesis, informed by principles of meta-ethnography. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Studies Checklist was used. Results: Thirty-three eligible studies identified six themes encompassing factors perceived by carers to affect their mental health during end-of-life caregiving. These were: (1) the patient condition (including patient decline); (2) impact of caring responsibilities (including exhaustion, lack of time for own needs, isolation); (3) relationships (including quality of the patient-carer relationship); (4) finances (including financial concerns, impact on work); (5) carers' internal processes (including loss of autonomy, lack of confidence, coping strategies); and (6) support (including lack of informal support, inadequacies in formal support information and care provision, limited collaboration, disjointed care). Reported strategies to improve mental health were linked to the final two themes, with suggestions on how to manage carers' internal processes and build appropriate support. Findings correspond with literature 1998-2008, indicating consistency in factors affecting carers and adding validity to findings. Limitations: The review was limited to caregiving in the home setting and studies from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries published in English and Scandinavian. Identified papers predominantly considered carers of people with cancer, with little research into ethnic-minority perspectives. The review may therefore not fully encompass factors affecting carers of people with longer-term conditions, or those within other care settings, countries and population groups. Conclusions and future work: A wide range of both internal and contextual factors may lead to psychological morbidity when caring for someone at the end of life. Future work within practice therefore requires a broad-based rather than narrow approach to sustaining and improving carer mental health. Future work within research requires collaboration between researchers and stakeholders within policy, commissioning, practice and carer organisations to develop solutions and assess their effectiveness. Further, researchers need to develop better models for factors affecting carer mental health and their interaction, to build a stronger evidence base and better guide interventions. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130279. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number HSDR 18/01/01 and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Being a carer for a family member or friend at the end of their life can have an impact on the carer's mental health. This includes depression, anxiety, stress and feeling overwhelmed. If carers feel unable to cope, they may be less able to look after their relative or friend. The mental health of carers must be a priority to help them feel better, cope, and support patients. This review summarises information from research into things that carers say are important for their mental health, to help us understand how we may be able to maintain or improve carers' mental health. We worked with six carers in a Review Advisory Panel to search for studies on carers' experience published between 1 January 2009 and 24 November 2019 and identify common themes from identified studies. Themes were put into a table of themes and subthemes, assessed by the carers, and compared with other literature to identify factors that caused carers to have poor mental health, and ways to help carers feel better. We found six themes that indicate how caring for those at the end of life can affect mental health. These include: the impact of the patient condition and seeing the patient decline; the impact of caring responsibilities; carers' relationship with the patient; finances; carers' feelings and experiences such as lack of control or confidence when caring; and support from other family, friends and health-care professionals. Strategies to improve mental health were linked to the final two themes, including how to manage carers' views and experiences of their situation and how to gain appropriate support. This study describes factors that lead to poor mental health and ways to improve mental health when caring for someone at the end of life. Further work is needed to use this information to inform policy and service delivery.

Involving carer advisors in evidence synthesis to improve carers' mental health during end-of-life home care: co-production during COVID-19 remote working.

Background: Family carers play a central role in supporting people at the end of life, but often suffer detrimental impacts on their own mental health as a result. This project conducted evidence synthesis of research into factors that may affect carers' mental health to help identify ways of maintaining their mental health. It worked closely with a carer Review Advisory Panel to help ensure the findings made sense and were communicated meaningfully from the carers' perspective. Aim: To present: (1) principles and components that facilitated successful patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project to help inform patient and public involvement in similar projects; (2) recommendations for carer support that were instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel. Process and principles: Nine Review Advisory Panel meetings including four to five carers, a lay Chair and three researchers were held. Solid 'groundwork' was invested in recruitment and relationship-building prior to meetings, and it was ensured that there was agreement of how to work together and clarification of expectations at the first meeting. Key meeting principles were: having a majority of carers, and a Chair with both carer and patient and public involvement experience, to ensure carer voices remained at the fore substantial researcher representation, including the project lead, to highlight the value placed on Review Advisory Panel meetings flexibility to follow carers' agendas, enabling 'space to talk' and 'space to change' appropriate and prompt carer payment, again emphasising patient and public involvement value to the project. Added general principles were: ongoing training, ample funded time for Review Advisory Panel preparation and ongoing communication outside meetings. COVID moved all meetings online after the first meeting, but the principles were maintained. Outputs: The project saw an evolution from patient and public involvement consultation to co-production. The main patient and public involvement output was recommendations for supporting carers based on project findings, instigated and produced by the Review Advisory Panel. Reflection on successful components and challenges: Five carers (including the Chair) and six researchers responded to questions by e-mail. Analysis by one researcher, aided by two other researchers, was then reviewed by all participants and revised. Both carers and researchers felt the components that made the patient and public involvement work were: (1) a shared sense of purpose of and gains from the Review Advisory Panel; (2) personal gains; (3) mutual commitment and respect; and (4) bridging between academic and lay perspectives, through investment in training, ensuring carers were able to meaningfully comment, and continuous negotiation and compromise. Challenges were that the COVID-induced move from face-to-face to online meetings reduced informality, flexibility, personal connection and non-verbal communication. However, earlier groundwork facilitated group resilience to these challenges. Patient and public involvement representation on the wider Research Management Group proved less successful, flagging the importance of negotiating and defining patient and public involvement roles at all project levels. Conclusion: The patient and public involvement principles employed, including meeting composition and chairing, and flexibility to follow carers' agendas, appeared to facilitate the evolution from consultation to co-production of carer recommendations, but require further testing. Preconditions for successful remote working should be further investigated, as the different advantages of face-to-face and virtual meetings may be combined through hybrid working. The iterative and responsive working required for genuine co-production may require more flexible patient and public involvement funding models. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO registration 2019 CRD42019130279 at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (grant 18/01/01) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Family carers are crucial in supporting people nearing the end of life, but their own mental health may often suffer as a consequence. This project summarised what is known about what makes carers' mental health better or worse. Researchers worked with a carer Review Advisory Panel to ensure that project findings were understandable and useful to carers. To report key findings on what made the teamwork between researchers and carers successful; to help improve teamwork in other projects; and to present carers' own recommendations on how to improve their mental health. Nine Review Advisory Panel meetings were held which included four to five carers, a lay Chair and three researchers. Important early preparation included getting to know each other and agreeing how to work together. Key meeting principles were: (1) bringing carer voices to the fore by having a majority of carers and an experienced carer as Chair; (2) highlighting the value placed on meetings by having several researchers attend, including the project lead; (3) flexibility to include carers' own agenda and project changes; and (4) appropriate and prompt carer payment. Meetings had to adapt to online working due to COVID-19. Carers moved from being advisors to taking more initiative and producing their own carer recommendations, which became a main project output. Written reflections by carers and researchers indicated that successful teamwork arose from a shared sense of purpose and gains, mutual commitment and respect, and bridging between researcher and carer perspectives through training, communication, negotiation and compromise. Early preparation helped the group adapt to the challenges of online working. Carer representation on other project committees could have been improved. Project principles enabled good researcher­carer teamwork and produced valuable carer recommendations, but need proper investment in time and resources. Online working can be successful, but needs good face-to-face preparation.

A multistakeholder development process to prioritize and translate COVID-19 health recommendations for patients, caregivers and the public. A case study of the COVID-19 recommendation map.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To develop a digital communication tool to improve the implementation of up-to-date COVID-19 recommendations. Specifically, to improve patient, caregiver and public understanding of healthcare recommendations on prevention, diagnoses and treatment. METHODS: Multi-stakeholder engagement design. In conjunction with the COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization RecMap, we co-developed a stakeholder prioritization, drafting and editing process to enhance guideline communication and understanding. RESULTS: This paper presents the multi-stakeholder development process with three distinct plain language recommendation formats: formal recommendation, good practice statement, and additional guidance. Our case study of COVID-19 plain language recommendations PLRs addresses both public health interventions (e.g., vaccination, face masks) and clinical interventions (e.g., home pulse oximetry). CONCLUSION: This paper presents a novel approach to engaging stakeholders in improving the communication and understanding of published guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Development and formative evaluation of patient research partner involvement in a multi-disciplinary European translational research project.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patient and public involvement (PPI) improves the quality of health research and ensures that research is relevant to patients' needs. Though PPI is increasingly evident in clinical and health services research, there are few examples in the research literature of effective PPI in translational and laboratory-based research. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of PPI in a multi-centre European project (EuroTEAM - Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) that included both translational and laboratory-based and psychosocial research. We found that although most PPI in EuroTEAM was centred around the psychosocial research, there were examples of PPI in the laboratory studies. As the project evolved, researchers became better at accommodating PPI and identifying PPI opportunities. It was generally agreed that PPI had a positive impact on the project overall, particularly on public engagement with the research. We concluded that the inclusion of both psychosocial and laboratory-based research in the same project facilitated PPI across all aspects of the research. In future projects, we would try to specify individual PPI activities in more detail at the project-planning stage, and better accommodate patient partners who are not native speakers of English. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) enhances research quality and relevance and is central to contemporary health policy. The value of PPI has been recognised in rheumatology research, though there are limited examples of PPI in basic and translational science. The EU FP7 funded 'EuroTEAM' (Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) project was established to develop biomarker-based approaches to predict the future development of rheumatoid arthritis and incorporated psychosocial research to investigate the perceptions of 'at risk' individuals about predictive testing, and to develop informational resources about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. Patient involvement was central to EuroTEAM from the inception of the project. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of PPI in EuroTEAM, formatively assess the impact of PPI from the perspectives of researchers and patient research partners (PRPs), reflect on successes and lessons learned, and formulate recommendations to guide future projects.Methods Two mixed-methods surveys (for PRPs and researchers) and a teleconference were undertaken to assess the impact of PPI on individual work packages and on EuroTEAM overall.Results There was consensus about the positive impact of PPI on the research and on the experiences of those involved. In particular, the positive impact of PPI on the personal development of researchers, and on effective public engagement with EuroTEAM research were highlighted. Researchers described adapting their practice in future projects to facilitate PPI. Spin-off projects and ongoing collaborations between PRPs and researchers reflected the value of PPI to participants. PPI was more frequently integrated in psychosocial research, though examples of PPI in laboratory/translational science were also described. PRPs asked for more opportunities to contribute meaningfully to basic scientific research and for more extensive feedback on their contributions.Conclusions The findings were used to formulate recommendations to guide effective involvement of patients in future similar projects, including identifying specific training requirements for PRPs and researchers, the identification of PRP focused tasks/deliverables at the project planning stage, and supporting access to involvement for all PRPs. Importantly, the distinctive multidisciplinary approach of EuroTEAM, incorporating both basic science and psychosocial research, facilitated patient involvement in the project overall.

Working with public contributors to improve the patient experience at the Manchester Clinical Research Facility: an evaluation of the Experience Based Design approach.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: The Experience Based Design (EBD) approach involves patients, staff and members of the public working together to improve a service. This paper evaluates the methods that are used to involve patients and members of the public in a project that aimed to improve the patient experience at Manchester Clinical Research Facility (MCRF). The aim was to explore what helps staff and members of the public to work well together. An evaluation questionnaire was used to get feedback from staff and public contributors. Questions included whether each person felt that they were able to shape the project; if they received enough training; whether they had enough time to complete each task; how well they thought the group worked together; and what could be improved. The findings showed that both staff and public contributors felt valued and that they were able to shape the project from the beginning. Training in EBD and research methodology, and providing enough time to complete each task helped to build relationships and increase confidence when contributing to the project. Personal benefits included a feeling of ownership over a worthwhile and rewarding project, increased awareness of public involvement and gaining new skills. The recommendations for successful involvement of patients and the public in EBD projects will hopefully be helpful for similar projects in the future. ABSTRACT: Background The Experience Based Design (EBD) approach promotes the effective involvement of patients and public contributors by enabling patients, public contributors and staff to co-design projects that aim to improve the patient experience. This approach allows patients and members of the public to have a role in shaping and improving current services. This paper aims to evaluate the EBD process from a public involvement perspective, exploring the barriers and facilitators to building successful working relationships. Methods An open-ended evaluation questionnaire was developed to gain feedback from staff and public contributors who co-produced an EBD project that aimed to improve the patient experience at Manchester CRF. Questions explored what worked well, how the project could be improved, and the benefits of being involved. Results Our findings highlight the importance of providing opportunities for staff, patients and members of the public to build relationships in order to feel confident in voicing their opinions. This can be achieved by training both staff and public contributors in EBD methodology to reduce any power imbalance that may exist. Negotiating adequate time to complete tasks and debate the best way forward also allows everyone to fully contribute to the project. Each individual felt that their contribution was valued and that they shaped the final action plan. Both public contributors and staff listed a number of personal benefits from their involvement in the project. This included a feeling of ownership over a worthwhile and rewarding project, increased awareness of public involvement in EBD projects and gaining new skills. Conclusion This evaluation provides recommendations for best practice for effectively involving public contributors in an EBD methodology. These findings aim to encourage a more consistent approach to EBD across organisations.

Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: lessons learnt.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patients and researchers must work together to improve the relevance and quality of research. Qualitative systematic reviews synthesise findings from a range of published qualitative studies to identify common themes, and can make recommendations for practice or future research. The process of conducting a systemic review offers multiple opportunities for patient involvement.This paper explores the reflections of patient research partners involved in a qualitative systematic review. Patient partners were asked how their experience of the review process could be used to improve patient involvement in future qualitative systematic reviews. Following involvement in a systematic review an exploratory questionnaire was emailed to eight patient research partners. Open ended questions focussed on the training they had received, whether they had enjoyed taking part and how the process could be improved. Patients stated that they needed clear instructions and examples of how to take part in the systematic review. Face to face training was preferred, and it was important that patients were given enough time to complete the task. The study led to benefits for patients including gaining new skills and improved confidence. Each patient also wanted to know how their comments had influenced the paper and wanted feedback on whether they needed any further training. Through reflection with patient partners, recommendations for the involvement of patients in qualitative systematic reviews were developed to allow researchers to successfully involve patients in the review process. ABSTRACT: Background Patient involvement in systematic reviews is seen as good practice, yet there is a lack of accessible standardised training for those involved. The aim of this paper is to inform the evidence base on effective ways of involving patients in a qualitative meta-synthesis. This process is evaluated and reflected by patient research partners (PRPs) who provided accounts of their experience. Methods An open ended questionnaire was emailed to eight PRPs who had participated in the analysis of a qualitative meta-synthesis. Questions focussed on the training they received, their experience of coding data and identifying themes, whether they enjoyed taking part in the project and how the process could be improved. Results Our findings point to the importance of detailed training for PRPs, using plain English and clear examples of analysis techniques to improve confidence in engaging with meta-synthesis methods. Face to face training was preferred in order to discuss a PRP's understanding of the task ahead. Time is an important consideration as PRPs often complete this work on top of their daily commitments and need the time and on-going support to be able to immerse themselves in the data. A focus group was a useful way to discuss the themes but it is important that PRPs understand how their comments have influenced the paper. PRPs reported benefits that included building new skills, improving confidence and gaining knowledge. They also asked for feedback on their contribution and any further training needs. All PRPs said they would take part in a meta-synthesis in the future as long as these considerations were addressed. Conclusion The recommendations for practice identified in this paper, and guidelines for training, can assist researchers in collaborating with PRPs when developing and conducting a qualitative meta-synthesis.

Diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis in black and minority ethnic people: a qualitative study.

AIM: This study aims to explore the possible reasons for the lower levels of diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis (CFS/ME) in the black and minority ethnic (BME) population, and the implications for management. BACKGROUND: Population studies suggest CFS/ME is more common in people from BME communities compared with the White British population. However, the diagnosis is made less frequently in BME groups. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 35 key stakeholders in NW England. Interviews were analysed using open explorative thematic coding. FINDINGS: There are barriers at every stage to the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME in people from BME groups. This begins with a lack of awareness of CFS/ME among BME respondents. Religious beliefs and the expectation of roles in the family and community mean that some people in BME groups may choose to manage their symptoms outside primary care using alternative therapies, prayer or spiritual healing. When accessing primary care, all participants recognised the possible influence of language barriers in reducing the likelihood of a diagnosis of CFS/ME. Stereotypical beliefs, including labels such as 'lazy' or 'work shy' were also believed to act as a barrier to diagnosis. Patients highlighted the importance of an on-going relationship with the general practitioner (GP), but perceived a high turnover of GPs in inner city practices, which undermined the holistic approach necessary to achieve a diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Training is required for health professionals to challenge inaccurate assumptions about CFS/ME in BME groups. The focus on the individual in UK primary care may not be appropriate for this group due to the role played by the family and community in how symptoms can be presented and managed. Culturally sensitive, educational resources for patients are also needed to explain symptoms and legitimise consultation.

Diagnosing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in South Asians: Lessons from a Secondary Analysis of a UK Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis (CFS/ME) is rarely diagnosed in South Asia (SA), although the symptoms of this condition are seen in the population. Lessons from UK based South Asian, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities may be of value in identifying barriers to diagnosis of CFS/ME in SA. OBJECTIVES: To explore why CFS/ME may not be commonly diagnosed in SA. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A secondary analysis of qualitative data on the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME in BME people of predominantly South Asian origin in the UK using 27 semi-structured qualitative interviews with people with CFE/ME, carers, general practitioners (GPs), and community leaders. RESULTS: CFS/ME is seen among the BME communities in the UK. People from BME communities in the UK can present to healthcare practitioners with vague physical complaints and they can hold a biomedical model of illness. Patients found it useful to have a label of CFS/ME although some GPs felt it to be a negative label. Access to healthcare can be limited by GPs reluctance to diagnose CFS/ME, their lack of knowledge and patients negative experiences. Cultural aspects among BME patients in the UK also act as a barrier to the diagnosis of CFS/ME. CONCLUSION: Cultural values and practices influence the diagnosis of CFS/ME in BME communities. The variations in the perceptions around CFS/ME among patients, carers, and health professionals may pose challenges in diagnosing CFS/ME in SA as well. Raising awareness of CFS/ME would improve the diagnosis and management of patients with CFS/ME in SA.