An exploration of the experiences and self-generated strategies used when navigating everyday life with Long Covid.

BACKGROUND: Around one in ten people who contract Covid-19 report ongoing symptoms or 'Long Covid'. Without any known interventions to cure the condition, forms of self-management are routinely prescribed by healthcare professionals and described by people with the condition. However, there is limited research exploring what strategies are used to navigate everyday life with Long Covid, and experiences that initiate development of these strategies. Our study aimed to explore the range and influence of self-generated strategies used by people with Long Covid to navigate everyday life within the context of their own condition. METHODS: Forming part of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support co-design and EvaluatioN (LISTEN) project, we conducted a qualitative study using narrative interviews with adults who were not hospitalised with Covid-19. Participants aged over 18 years, who self-identified with Long Covid, were recruited from England and Wales. Data were analysed with patient contributors using a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen participants (mean age = 44 years, SD = 13 years) took part in interviews held between December 2021 and February 2022. Themes were constructed which depicted 1) the landscape behind the Long Covid experience and 2) the everyday experience of participants' Long Covid. The everyday experience comprised a combination of physical, emotional, and social factors, forming three sub-themes: centrality of physical symptoms, navigating 'experts' and the 'true colour' of personal communities, and a rollercoaster of psychological ambiguity). The third theme, personal strategies to manage everyday life was constructed from participants' unique presentations and self-generated solutions to manage everyday life. This comprised five sub-themes: seeking reassurance and knowledge, developing greater self-awareness through monitoring, trial and error of 'safe' ideas, building in pleasure and comfort, and prioritising 'me'. CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of adults with Long Covid, their experiences highlighted the unpredictable nature of the condition but also the use of creative and wide ranging self-generated strategies. The results offer people with Long Covid, and healthcare professionals supporting them, an overview of the collective evidence relating to individuals' self-management which can enable ways to live 'better' and regain some sense of identity whilst facing the impact of a debilitating, episodic condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216.

Exploring how members of the public access and use health research and information: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Making high-quality health and care information available to members of the general public is crucial to support populations with self-care and improve health outcomes. While attention has been paid to how the public accesses and uses health information generally (including personal records, commercial product information or reviews on healthcare practitioners and organisations) and how practitioners and policy-makers access health research evidence, no overview exists of the way that the public accesses and uses high quality health and care information. PURPOSE: This scoping review aimed to map research evidence on how the public accesses and uses a specific type of health information, namely health research and information that does not include personal, product and organisational information. METHODS: Electronic database searches [CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text, Web of Science and SCOPUS] for English language studies of any research design published between 2010-2022 on the public's access and use of health research or information (as defined above). Data extraction and analysis was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol for scoping reviews, and reported in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS: The search identified 4410 records. Following screening of 234 full text studies, 130 studies were included. One-hundred-and-twenty-nine studies reported on the public's sources of health-research or information; 56 reported the reasons for accessing health research or information and 14 reported on the use of this research and information. The scoping exercise identified a substantial literature on the broader concept of 'health information' but a lack of reporting of the general public's access to and use of health research. It found that 'traditional' sources of information are still relevant alongside newer sources; knowledge of barriers to accessing information focused on personal barriers and on independent searching, while less attention had been paid to barriers to access through other people and settings, people's lived experiences, and the cultural knowledge required. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified areas where future primary and secondary research would enhance current understanding of how the public accesses and utilises health research or information, and contribute to emerging areas of research.

Interventions to enhance the research productivity of academic staff in higher education schools of nursing: A systematic review.

AIM: Synthesize and present peer-reviewed evidence of interventions that enhance the research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing in Higher Education Institutions. BACKGROUND: Pressures on academics in Schools of Nursing worldwide to increase or maintain high research productivity persist and numerous Higher Education Institutions across the world have developed interventions to increase productivity. Given evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a withdrawal from research, understanding which interventions best support and improve research productivity is urgent. Increasing research capacity is crucial but only one element in increasing productivity. No recent attempt has been made to synthesise the knowledge gained from these more wide-ranging initiatives. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, searching four academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) from 1/01/2010-20/04/2022. All primary research studies of relevant interventions were included if they described the intervention, reported its outcomes and were published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: 1637 studies were assessed against eligibility criteria, resulting in 20 included studies. No studies were excluded based on quality. Data pertaining to understandings of 'research productivity', barriers to research productivity, interventions and outcomes of interventions were extracted. The most often used measures were the frequency or staff-output ratio of funding, publications and presentations, while the less commonly used were the number of conference abstracts submitted/accepted and awards. Subjective measures were less commonly used. Barriers to research productivity fell into three broad categories: resource constraints, lack of priority for research and barriers related to the attitudes, knowledge and skills of School of Nursing academics. Interventions covered nine broad areas. Half of the interventions were multi-stranded, including a wide range of components to increase research productivity while the other half comprised one component only, such as writing groups and mentoring. All interventions had a positive impact on research productivity, however, heterogeneity in the measurement of impact, the duration of interventions, sources of comparative data and research design made comparison of interventions challenging. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified a need for future research to explore the barriers among under-represented groups of academics in Schools of Nursing across a broader geographical area; and what works for various sub-groups of academics. It also identified a need for a valid, standardised tool to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing.

Enhancing the well-being of front-line healthcare professionals in high pressure clinical environments: A mixed-methods evaluative research project.

BACKGROUND: The last few years have witnessed a growing concern with the well-being of healthcare professionals internationally because of increasing recognition of its impact on patient outcomes and staff retention. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has placed additional and substantial pressure on frontline healthcare professionals, gives added urgency to the topic. While numerous, and successful, interventions have been developed to address compromised well-being among healthcare professionals, they have not always been able to support the needs of frontline staff, specifically those working in high-pressure environments. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents findings of an evaluative research study of an intervention, named the Resilience and Well-being Training Programme, developed and implemented within an Acute Assessment Unit in a hospital in the UK. The 8 week-long programme followed a combined approach (both person-directed and work-directed), with mindfulness training as well as lectures and discussions to deepen participants' understanding of organisational life. The training, delivered from January to July 2018, involved a total of 72 healthcare professionals from a wide range of levels (UK bands 2-8), trained in three cohorts. DESIGN: The research followed a pre-post design to explore participants' experiences of working on the Unit, the programme and its impact on themselves and their working life. SETTING: The study was conducted in a large NHS district general hospital in South London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included healthcare assistants and nurses who had completed their preceptorship, worked in the hospital's acute assessment unit, and had undertaken the resilience and well-being training programme. METHODS: The study employed mixed methods (online questionnaire, face-to-face focus groups/interviews) to collect data. RESULTS: Findings showed participants' positive experience with the programme, however it had limited positive impacts on aspects of compromised well-being at the personal level and a statistically significant enhancement of the quality of relationships and communication on the Unit, with medium effect size (Cohen's D). The programme had a positive impact on the culture of the Unit. CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the demand for and value of programmes designed in ways that enable this group of professionals to take part, because these professionals are often not able to participate in such programmes. A strong commitment from the leadership to enable staff attendance in time-protected programmes is one approach that works well in the short-term. However, this may be challenging to accomplish and raises issues of sustainability.

Co-designing personalised self-management support for people living with long Covid: The LISTEN protocol.

BACKGROUND: Long Covid is recognised as a complex condition characterised by multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which impact everyday life in diverse ways. The extent of symptom clusters and variability supports interventions that can accommodate heterogeneity, such as personalised self-management support. This approach is also advocated by people living with long Covid and guidelines published by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support co-design and EvaluatioN (LISTEN) is one of 15 research projects funded by the UK's National Institute of Health Research long Covid research programme. LISTEN aims to work with people living with or recovered from long Covid to co-design self-management resources, and a training programme for rehabilitation practitioners to deliver personalised support. The intervention will focus on people not hospitalised for Covid. The protocol presented here details the co-design of the LISTEN intervention which, on completion, will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The study will utilise an Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design approach, and involve 30 people from England and Wales with lived experience of long Covid, and 15 rehabilitation practitioners living with, or supporting people with, long Covid. Through online meetings, participants will share their stories of long Covid, their challenges and strategies to live better with or recover from long Covid, their priorities for self-management resources and the practitioner training andcreate, review and refine these resources and the training. Throughout, LISTEN will draw upon the UK standards of public involvement in research. DISCUSSION: If effective and cost-effective, the intervention will be available across the UK's National Health Service. The first of its kind, this study could make a difference to the lives of people with long Covid. To ensure impact, we have developed strategies to involve people from diverse backgrounds and mitigate potential barriers to involvement.