Qualitative Content and Discourse Analysis Comparing the Current Consent Systems for Deceased Organ Donation in Spain and England.

England switched to an opt-out system of consent in 2020 aiming to increase the number of organs available. Spain also operates an opt-out system yet has almost twice the organ donations per million population compared with England. We aimed to identify both differences and similarities in the consent policies, documents and procedures in deceased donation between the two countries using comparative qualitative content and discourse analysis. Spain had simpler, locally tailored documents, the time taken for families to review and process information may be shorter, there were more pathways leading to organ donation in Spain, and more robust legal protections for the decisions individuals made in life. The language in the Spanish documents was one of support and reassurance. Documents in England by comparison appeared confusing, since additions were designed to protect the NHS against risk and made to previous document versions to reflect the law change rather than being entirely recast. If England's ambition is to achieve consent rates similar to Spain this analysis has highlighted opportunities that could strengthen the English system-by giving individuals' decisions recorded on the organ donor register legal weight, alongside unifying and simplifying consent policies and procedures to support families and healthcare professionals.

The experiences and perspectives of abortion seekers who travel for care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (qualitative). The objectives are as follows: This QES aims to address the following question: What are the lived experiences and perceptions of abortion seekers (i.e. pregnant women, transgender men, and non-binary people of any gender) traveling to obtain care? The review objectives are to: synthesize the qualitative evidence to address the review question; identify factors that influence abortion travel experiences and perspectives, which may include the specific abortion regulatory and care delivery context (e.g. legal restrictions, unavailability) and abortion seekers' personal circumstances (e.g. age, race/ethnicity, gender, partnership status, gestational duration, social/family support, income/wealth).

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. BACKGROUND: The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. CONCLUSION: Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Understanding parent experiences of end-of-life care for children: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 21 million children worldwide would benefit from palliative care input and over 7 million die each year. For parents of these children this is an intensely emotional and painful time through which they will need support. There is a lack of synthesised research about how parents experience the care delivered to their child at the end of life. AIM: To systematically identify and synthesise qualitative research on parents' experiences of end-of-life care of their child. DESIGN: A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021242946). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases were searched for qualitative studies published post-2000 to April 2020. Studies were appraised for methodological quality and data richness. Confidence in findings was assessed by GRADE-CERQual. RESULTS: About 95 studies met the eligibility criteria. A purposive sample of 25 studies was taken, of good-quality papers with rich data describing the experience of over 470 parents. There were two overarching themes: parents of children receiving end-of-life care experienced a profound need to fulfil the parental role; and care of the parent. Subthemes included establishing their role, maintaining identity, ultimate responsibility, reconstructing the parental role, and continuing parenting after death. CONCLUSIONS: Services delivering end-of-life care for children need to recognise the importance for parents of being able to fulfil their parental role and consider how they enable this. What the parental role consists of, and how it's expressed, differs for individuals. Guidance should acknowledge the need to enable parents to parent at their child's end of life.

A meta-ethnography of how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience and understand their condition, pain services, and treatments.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain in childhood is widespread, affecting 20% to 35% of children and young people worldwide. For a sizeable number of children, chronic non-cancer pain has considerable negative impacts on their lives and quality of life, and leads to increased use of healthcare services and medication. In many countries, there are few services for managing children's chronic non-cancer pain, with many services being inadequate. Fourteen Cochrane Reviews assessing the effects of pharmacological, psychological, psychosocial, dietary or physical activity interventions for managing children's chronic non-cancer pain identified a lack of high-quality evidence to inform pain management. To design and deliver services and interventions that meet the needs of patients and their families, we need to understand how children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience pain, their views of services and treatments for chronic pain, and which outcomes are important to them. OBJECTIVES: 1. To synthesise qualitative studies that examine the experiences and perceptions of children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families regarding chronic non-cancer pain, treatments and services to inform the design and delivery of health and social care services, interventions and future research. 2. To explore whether our review findings help to explain the results of Cochrane Reviews of intervention effects of treatments for children's chronic non-cancer pain. 3. To determine if programme theories and outcomes of interventions match children and their families' views of desired treatments and outcomes. 4. To use our findings to inform the selection and design of patient-reported outcome measures for use in chronic non-cancer pain studies and interventions and care provision to children and their families. The review questions are: 1. How do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families conceptualise chronic pain? 2. How do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families live with chronic pain? 3. What do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families think of how health and social care services respond to and manage their child's chronic pain? 4. What do children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families conceptualise as 'good' chronic pain management and what do they want to achieve from chronic pain management interventions and services? SEARCH METHODS: Review strategy: we comprehensively searched 12 bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and grey literature sources, and conducted supplementary searches in 2020. We updated the database searches in September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: To identify published and unpublished qualitative research with children aged 3 months to 18 years with chronic non-cancer pain and their families focusing on their perceptions, experiences and views of chronic pain, services and treatments. The final inclusion criteria were agreed with a patient and public involvement group of children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography, a seven-phase, systematic, interpretive, inductive methodology that takes into account the contexts and meanings of the original studies. We assessed the richness of eligible studies and purposively sampled rich studies ensuring they addressed the review questions. Cochrane Qualitative Methods Implementation Group guidance guided sampling. We assessed the methodological limitations of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. We extracted data on study aims, focus, characteristics and conceptual findings from study reports using NVivo software. We compared these study data to determine how the studies related to one another and grouped studies by pain conditions for synthesis. We used meta-ethnography to synthesise each group of studies separately before synthesising them all together. Analysis and interpretation of studies involved children with chronic non-cancer pain and their families and has resulted in theory to inform service design and delivery. Sampling, organising studies for synthesis, and analysis and interpretation involved our patient and public involvement group who contributed throughout the conduct of the review. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each review finding. We used a matrix approach to integrate our findings with existing Cochrane Reviews on treatment effectiveness for children's chronic non-cancer pain. MAIN RESULTS: We synthesised 43 studies sampled from 170 eligible studies reported in 182 publications. Included studies involved 633 participants. GRADE-CERQual assessments of findings were mostly high (n = 21, 58%) or moderate (n = 12, 33%) confidence with three (8%) low or very low confidence. Poorly managed, moderate or severe chronic non-cancer pain had profound adverse impacts on family dynamics and relationships; family members' emotions, well-being, autonomy and sense of self-identity; parenting strategies; friendships and socialising; children's education and future employment prospects; and parental employment. Most children and parents understood chronic non-cancer pain as having an underlying biological cause and wanted curative treatment. However, families had difficulties seeking and obtaining support from health services to manage their child's pain and its impacts. Children and parents felt that healthcare professionals did not always listen to their experiences and expertise, or believe the child's pain. Some families repeatedly visited health services seeking a diagnosis and cure. Over time, some children and families gave up hope of effective treatment. Outcomes measured within trials and Cochrane Reviews of intervention effects did not include some outcomes of importance to children and families, including impacts of pain on the whole family and absence of pain. Cochrane Reviews have mainly neglected a holistic biopsychosocial approach, which specifies the interrelatedness of biological, psychological and social aspects of illness, when selecting outcome measures and considering how chronic pain management interventions work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We had high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to most review findings. Further research, especially into families' experiences of treatments and services, could strengthen the evidence for low or very low confidence findings. Future research should also explore families' experiences in low- to middle-income contexts; of pain treatments including opioid use in children, which remains controversial; and of social care services. We need development and testing of family-centred interventions and services acceptable to families. Future trials of children's chronic non-cancer pain interventions should include family-centred outcomes.

A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly seen as something that is integral to research and of importance to research funders. There is general recognition that PPI is the right thing to do for both moral and practical reasons. The aim of this review of reviews is to examine how PPI can be done 'properly' by looking at the evidence that exists from published reviews and assessing it against the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research, as well as examining the specific features of population health research that can make PPI more challenging. METHODS: A review of reviews and development of best practice guidance was carried out following the 5-stage Framework Synthesis method. RESULTS: In total 31 reviews were included. There is a lack of current research or clarity around Governance and Impact when findings are mapped against UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. It was also clear that there is little knowledge around PPI with under-represented groups. There are gaps in knowledge about how to ensure key specific attributes of population health research are addressed for PPI team members - particularly around how to deal with complexity and the data-driven nature of the research. Four tools were produced for researchers and PPI members to further improve their PPI activity within population health research and health research more generally, including a framework of recommended actions to address PPI in population health research, and guidance on integrating PPI based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitating PPI in population health research is challenging due to the nature of this type of research and there is far less evidence on how to do PPI well in this context. The tools can help researchers identify key aspects of PPI that can be integrated when designing PPI within projects. Findings also highlight specific areas where more research or discussion is needed.

Regional perspectives on the coordination and delivery of paediatric end-of-life care in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Provision of and access to paediatric end-of-life care is inequitable, but previous research on this area has focused on perspectives of health professionals in specific settings or children with specific conditions. This qualitative study aimed to explore regional perspectives of the successes, and challenges to the equitable coordination and delivery of end-of-life care for children in the UK. The study provides an overarching perspective on the challenges of delivering and coordinating end-of-life care for children in the UK, and the impact of these on health professionals and organisations. Previous research has not highlighted the successes in the sector, such as the formal and informal coordination of care between different services and sectors. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with Chairs of the regional Palliative Care Networks across the UK. Chairs or co-Chairs (n = 19) of 15/16 Networks were interviewed between October-December 2021. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: one standalone theme ("Communication during end-of-life care"); and two overarching themes ("Getting end-of-life services and staff in the right place", with two themes: "Access to, and staffing of end-of-life care" and "Inconsistent and insufficient funding for end-of-life care services"; and "Linking up healthcare provision", with three sub-themes: "Coordination successes", "Role of the networks", and "Coordination challenges"). Good end-of-life care was facilitated through collaborative and network approaches to service provision, and effective communication with families. The implementation of 24/7 advice lines and the formalisation of joint-working arrangements were highlighted as a way to address the current challenges in the specialism. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate how informal and formal relationships between organisations and individuals, enabled early communication with families, and collaborative working with specialist services. Formalising these could increase knowledge and awareness of end of life care, improve staff confidence, and overall improve professionals' experiences of delivering care, and families' experiences of receiving it. There are considerable positives that come from collaborative working between different organisations and sectors, and care could be improved if these approaches are funded and formalised. There needs to be consistent funding for paediatric palliative care and there is a clear need for education and training to improve staff knowledge and confidence.

The use of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis: an evaluation of fidelity and reporting.

BACKGROUND: GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) is a methodological approach to systematically and transparently assess how much confidence decision makers can place in individual review findings from qualitative evidence syntheses. The number of reviews applying GRADE-CERQual is rapidly expanding in guideline and other decision-making contexts. The objectives of this evaluation were, firstly, to describe the uptake of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis by review authors and, secondly, to assess both reporting of and fidelity to the approach. METHODS: The evaluation had two parts. Part 1 was a citation analysis and descriptive overview of the literature citing GRADE-CERQual. Authors worked together to code and chart the citations, first by title and abstract and second by full text. Part 2 was an assessment and analysis of fidelity to, and reporting of, the GRADE-CERQual approach in included reviews. We developed fidelity and reporting questions and answers based on the most recent guidance for GRADE-CERQual and then used NVivo12 to document assessments in a spreadsheet and code full-text PDF articles for any concerns that had been identified. Our assessments were exported to Excel and we applied count formulae to explore patterns in the data. We employed a qualitative content analysis approach in NVivo12 to sub-coding all the data illustrating concerns for each reporting and fidelity criteria. RESULTS: 233 studies have applied the GRADE-CERQual approach, with most (n = 225, 96.5%) in the field of health research. Many studies (n = 97/233, 41.6%) were excluded from full fidelity and reporting assessment because they demonstrated a serious misapplication of GRADE-CERQual, for example interpreting it as a quality appraisal tool for primary studies or reviews. For the remaining studies that applied GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in review findings, the main areas of reporting concern involved terminology, labelling and completeness. Fidelity concerns were identified in more than half of all studies assessed. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE-CERQual is being used widely within qualitative evidence syntheses and there are common reporting and fidelity issues. Most of these are avoidable and we highlight these as gaps in knowledge and guidance for applying the GRADE-CERQual approach.

Feminizing care pathways: Mixed-methods study of reproductive options, decision making, pregnancy, post-natal care and parenting amongst women with kidney disease.

AIMS: To identify the needs, experiences and preferences of women with kidney disease in relation to their reproductive health to inform development of shared decision-making interventions. DESIGN: UK-wide mixed-methods convergent design (Sep 20-Aug 21). METHODS: Online questionnaire (n = 431) with validated components. Purposively sampled semi-structured interviews (n = 30). Patient and public input throughout. FINDINGS: Kidney disease was associated with defeminization, negatively affecting current (sexual) relationships and perceptions of future life goals. There was little evidence that shared decision making was taking place. Unplanned pregnancies were common, sometimes influenced by poor care and support and complicated systems. Reasons for (not) wanting children varied. Complicated pregnancies and miscarriages were common. Women often felt that it was more important to be a "good mother" than to address their health needs, which were often unmet and unrecognized. Impacts of pregnancy on disease and options for alternates to pregnancy were not well understood. CONCLUSION: The needs and reproductive priorities of women are frequently overshadowed by their kidney disease. High-quality shared decision-making interventions need to be embedded as routine in a feminized care pathway that includes reproductive health. Research is needed in parallel to examine the effectiveness of interventions and address inequalities. IMPACT: We do not fully understand the expectations, needs, experiences and preferences of women with kidney disease for planning and starting a family or deciding not to have children. Women lack the knowledge, resources and opportunities to have high-quality conversations with their healthcare professionals. Decisions are highly personal and related to a number of health, social and cultural factors; individualized approaches to care are essential. Healthcare services need to be redesigned to ensure that women are able to make informed choices about pregnancy and alternative routes to becoming a parent. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The original proposal for this research came from listening to the experiences of women in clinic who reported unmet needs and detailed experiences of their pregnancies (positive and negative). A patient group was involved in developing the funding application and helped to refine the objectives by sharing their experiences. Two women who are mothers living with kidney disease were co-opted as core members of the research team. We hosted an interim findings event and invited patients and wider support services (adoption, fertility, surrogacy, education and maternal chronic kidney disease clinics) from across the UK to attend. We followed the UK national standards for patient and public involvement throughout.

Assessing the efficacy of coproduction to better understand the barriers to achieving sustainability in NHS chronic kidney services and create alternate pathways.

CONTEXT: Too many people living with chronic kidney disease are opting for and starting on hospital-based dialysis compared to a home-based kidney replacement therapy. Dialysis services are becoming financially unsustainable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of coproductive research in chronic kidney disease service improvement to achieve greater sustainability. DESIGN: A 2-year coproductive service improvement study was conducted with multiple stakeholders with the specific intention of maximizing engagement with the national health kidney services, patients and public. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A national health kidney service (3 health boards, 18 dialysis units), patients and families (n = 50), multidisciplinary teams including doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and so forth (n = 68), kidney charities, independent dialysis service providers and wider social services were part of this study. FINDINGS: Coproductive research identified underutilized resources (e.g., patients on home dialysis and social services) and their potential, highlighted unmet social care needs for patients and families and informed service redesign. Education packages were reimagined to support the home dialysis agenda including opportunities for wider service input. The impacts of one size fits all approaches to dialysis on specialist workforce skills were made clearer and also professional, patient and public perceptions of key sustainability policies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Patient and key stakeholders mapped out new ways to link services to create more sustainable models of kidney health and social care. Maintaining principles of knowledge coproduction could help achieve financial sustainability and move towards more prudent adult chronic kidney disease services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Involved in developing research questions, study design, management and conduct, interpretation of evidence and dissemination.

Seeking consent for organ donation: Process evaluation of implementing a new Specialist Requester nursing role.

AIM: To explain the differences in organ donation consent outcomes of a new nursing role (Specialist Requesters) derived from the United States (US) compared with the existing nursing role (Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation). DESIGN: Thirty-month observational qualitative process evaluation: Implementation theory-informed analysis. METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of free text describing challenges, processes and practice from 996 bespoke routinely collected potential organ donor 'approach forms' from two regions: one where there was no difference, and one with an observed difference in consent outcomes. RESULTS: Region A consent rate: Specialist Requester 75.8%, Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation71.8%. Region B consent rate: Specialist Requester 71.4%, Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation 82%. Region A Specialist Requesters turned the family position from no or uncertain to support organ donation in 73% of cases, compared with 27.4% in Region B. Two Specialist Requesters in Region A were highly effective. Region B experienced problems with intervention fidelity and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of the Specialist Requester role remain unclear. Positive differences in consent rates achieved by Specialist Requesters in the originator region reduced over time and have yet to be successfully replicated in other regions. IMPACT: The impact of Specialist Requesters on consent outcomes varied across regions and it was not known why. Specialist Requesters in Region A were better at getting family member(s) to support organ donation. In Region B, Specialist Nurse in Organ Donation consent rates were higher and problems with intervention fidelity were identified (recruitment, staffing, less experience). Policy makers need to understand it is not just a matter of waiting for the Specialist Requester intervention to work. Ongoing training and recruiting the right people with the right skills need to be addressed and consistently reviewed.

Engaging and supporting women with chronic kidney disease with pre-conception decision-making (including their experiences during COVID 19): A mixed-methods study protocol.

AIM: To report a protocol for a qualitative study to better understand the key factors that influence decision making about pregnancy from women's perspectives and to use these data to develop a theoretical model for shared decision-making tools for the multiple stakeholders. DESIGN: Mixed-method design using online surveys (with validated components) and purposively sampled follow-up semi structured interviews. METHODS: Funded from September 2020 for 12 months. Online surveys of adult women (aged 18-50) identified via all Wales kidney database (n ≥ 500), additional recruitment through multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, relevant third sector organizations and social media. Follow-up in-depth qualitative interviews with n = 30 women. Linear regression models to identify associations between shared decision-making preferences and clinical and psychosocial variables. Qualitative interviews will use a visual timeline task to empower women in taking control over their narratives. Qualitative data will be fully transcribed and analysed thematically, based around a chronological and theoretical (theoretical domains framework) structure that maps out key challenges and opportunities for improved decision support in the care pathway. Visual timelines will be used during stakeholder consultation activities, to enable us to co-create a map of current support, gaps in provision, and opportunities for interventions. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively to characterize our cohort. We will assemble a multidisciplinary shared decision-making intervention development group and provide ongoing stakeholder consultation activities with patient and public representatives. DISCUSSION: Outcomes will support new learning into; the ways women's knowledge of kidney disease may affect family planning and pregnancy, their needs in terms of psychological and social support, and how they weigh up the pros and cons of starting a family. IMPACT: Evidence will inform the design of new shared decision-making tools to better support women with the complex and often emotional decisions about having children while living with kidney disease.

Factors that impact on recruitment to randomised trials in health care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials (also referred to as 'randomised controlled trials' or 'trials') are the optimal way to minimise bias in evaluating the effects of competing treatments, therapies and innovations in health care. It is important to achieve the required sample size for a trial, otherwise trialists may not be able to draw conclusive results leading to research waste and raising ethical questions about trial participation. The reasons why potential participants may accept or decline participation are multifaceted. Yet, the evidence of effectiveness of interventions to improve recruitment to trials is not substantial and fails to recognise these individual decision-making processes. It is important to synthesise the experiences and perceptions of those invited to participate in randomised trials to better inform recruitment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To explore potential trial participants' views and experiences of the recruitment process for participation. The specific objectives are to describe potential participants' perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining to participate in trials, to explore barriers and facilitators to trial participation, and to explore to what extent barriers and facilitators identified are addressed by strategies to improve recruitment evaluated in previous reviews of the effects of interventions including a Cochrane Methodology Review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, LILACS, PsycINFO, ORRCA, and grey literature sources. We ran the most recent set of searches for which the results were incorporated into the review in July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that explored potential trial participants' experiences and perceptions of being invited to participate in a trial. We excluded studies that focused only on recruiters' perspectives, and trials solely involving children under 18 years, or adults who were assessed as having impaired mental capacity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used the CART (completeness, accuracy, relevance, timeliness) criteria to exclude studies that had limited focus on the phenomenon of interest. We used QSR NVivo to extract and manage the data. We assessed methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided analytical themes and a conceptual model. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. Our findings were integrated with two previous intervention effectiveness reviews by juxtaposing the quantitative and qualitative findings in a matrix. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies (published in 30 papers) in our synthesis. Twenty-two key findings were produced under three broad themes (with six subthemes) to capture the experience of being invited to participate in a trial and making the decision whether to participate. Most of these findings had moderate to high confidence. We identified factors from the trial itself that influenced participation. These included how trial information was communicated, and elements of the trial such as the time commitment that might be considered burdensome. The second theme related to personal factors such as how other people can influence the individual's decision; and how a personal understanding of potential harms and benefits could impact on the decision. Finally, the potential benefits of participation were found to be key to the decision to participate, namely personal benefits such as access to new treatments, but also the chance to make a difference and help others. The conceptual model we developed presents the decision-making process as a gauge and the factors that influence whether the person will, or will not, take part. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative evidence synthesis has provided comprehensive insight into the complexity of factors that influence a person's decision whether to participate in a trial. We developed key questions that trialists can ask when developing their recruitment strategy. In addition, our conceptual model emphasises the need for participant-centred approaches to recruitment. We demonstrated moderate to high level confidence in our findings, which in some way can be attributed to the large volume of highly relevant studies in this field. We recommend that these insights be used to direct or influence or underpin future recruitment strategies that are developed in a participant-driven way that ultimately improves trial conduct and reduces research waste.

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.

Systematic mapping of existing tools to appraise methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative research: first stage in the development of the CAMELOT tool.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative evidence synthesis is increasingly used alongside reviews of effectiveness to inform guidelines and other decisions. To support this use, the GRADE-CERQual approach was developed to assess and communicate the confidence we have in findings from reviews of qualitative research. One component of this approach requires an appraisal of the methodological limitations of studies contributing data to a review finding. Diverse critical appraisal tools for qualitative research are currently being used. However, it is unclear which tool is most appropriate for informing a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence. METHODOLOGY: We searched for tools that were explicitly intended for critically appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research. We searched the reference lists of existing methodological reviews for critical appraisal tools, and also conducted a systematic search in June 2016 for tools published in health science and social science databases. Two reviewers screened identified titles and abstracts, and then screened the full text of potentially relevant articles. One reviewer extracted data from each article and a second reviewer checked the extraction. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach to code checklist criteria from each identified tool and to organise these into themes. RESULTS: We identified 102 critical appraisal tools: 71 tools had previously been included in methodological reviews, and 31 tools were identified from our systematic search. Almost half of the tools were published after 2010. Few authors described how their tool was developed, or why a new tool was needed. After coding all criteria, we developed a framework that included 22 themes. None of the tools included all 22 themes. Some themes were included in up to 95 of the tools. CONCLUSION: It is problematic that researchers continue to develop new tools without adequately examining the many tools that already exist. Furthermore, the plethora of tools, old and new, indicates a lack of consensus regarding the best tool to use, and an absence of empirical evidence about the most important criteria for assessing the methodological limitations of qualitative research, including in the context of use with GRADE-CERQual.

A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases.

BACKGROUND: Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. METHODS: We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. RESULTS: Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography - determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. CONCLUSION: The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Having nurses take on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors (doctor-nurse substitution, a form of 'task-shifting') may help to address doctor shortages and reduce doctors' workload and human resource costs. A Cochrane Review of effectiveness studies suggested that nurse-led care probably leads to similar healthcare outcomes as care delivered by doctors. This finding highlights the need to explore the factors that affect the implementation of strategies to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. In our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focused on studies of nurses taking on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors working in primary care, including substituting doctors with nurses or expanding nurses' roles. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify factors influencing implementation of interventions to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings related to, and helped to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention review of the effectiveness of substituting doctors with nurses. (3) To identify hypotheses for subgroup analyses for future updates of the Cochrane intervention review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CINAHL and PubMed, contacted experts in the field, scanned the reference lists of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searches for key articles in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index databases, and 'related article' searches in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We constructed a maximum variation sample (exploring variables such as country level of development, aspects of care covered and the types of participants) from studies that had collected and analysed qualitative data related to the factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution and the expansion of nurses' tasks in community or primary care worldwide. We included perspectives of doctors, nurses, patients and their families/carers, policymakers, programme managers, other health workers and any others directly involved in or affected by the substitution. We excluded studies that collected data using qualitative methods but did not analyse the data qualitatively. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies using a framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed the methodological strengths and limitations of included studies using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. We assessed confidence in the evidence for the QES findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We integrated our findings with the evidence from the effectiveness review of doctor-nurse substitution using a matrix model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses for updates of the review of effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 studies (69 papers), 11 from low- or middle-income countries and 55 from high-income countries. These studies found several factors that appeared to influence the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies. The following factors were based on findings that we assessed as moderate or high confidence.Patients in many studies knew little about nurses' roles and the difference between nurse-led and doctor-led care. They also had mixed views about the type of tasks that nurses should deliver. They preferred doctors when the tasks were more 'medical' but accepted nurses for preventive care and follow-ups. Doctors in most studies also preferred that nurses performed only 'non-medical' tasks. Nurses were comfortable with, and believed they were competent to deliver a wide range of tasks, but particularly emphasised tasks that were more health promotive/preventive in nature.Patients in most studies thought that nurses were more easily accessible than doctors. Doctors and nurses also saw nurse-doctor substitution and collaboration as a way of increasing people's access to care, and improving the quality and continuity of care.Nurses thought that close doctor-nurse relationships and doctor's trust in and acceptance of nurses was important for shaping their roles. But nurses working alone sometimes found it difficult to communicate with doctors.Nurses felt they had gained new skills when taking on new tasks. But nurses wanted more and better training. They thought this would increase their skills, job satisfaction and motivation, and would make them more independent.Nurses taking on doctors' tasks saw this as an opportunity to develop personally, to gain more respect and to improve the quality of care they could offer to patients. Better working conditions and financial incentives also motivated nurses to take on new tasks. Doctors valued collaborating with nurses when this reduced their own workload.Doctors and nurses pointed to the importance of having access to resources, such as enough staff, equipment and supplies; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate training and supervision. But they often had problems with these issues. They also pointed to the huge number of documents they needed to complete when tasks were moved from doctors to nurses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patients, doctors and nurses may accept the use of nurses to deliver services that are usually delivered by doctors. But this is likely to depend on the type of services. Nurses taking on extra tasks want respect and collaboration from doctors; as well as proper resources; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate incentives, training and supervision. However, these needs are not always met.

Media content analysis of the introduction of a "soft opt-out" system of organ donation in Wales 2015-17.

In an attempt to improve organ donation rates, some countries are considering moving from "opt-in" systems where citizens must express their willingness to be an organ donor, to "opt-out" systems where consent is presumed unless individuals have expressed their wishes otherwise, by, for example, joining an "opt-out" register. In Wales-a part of the United Kingdom-the devolved government recently legislated for an "opt-out" system. For the change to be effective, a public awareness campaign was critical to the policy's success. Using quantitative and qualitative content analysis, we explored media coverage of the change to better understand the relationship between the state, policy actors, media and the public when such policy changes take place. Our findings illustrate how a state communication campaign can effectively set the media agenda within which we saw a degree of interdependency created with the state using the media to promote policy, and the media relying on the state for credible information. Yet we also found that the media is not uncritical and observed how it uses its autonomy to influence policy setting. Over the period of study, we found that a change in tone and view towards deemed consent organ donation has taken place in the media. However, while this may influence or reflect public attitudes, it is yet to be seen whether the media campaign translates into behavioural change that will result in increases in organ donations.

Designing a co-productive study to overcome known methodological challenges in organ donation research with bereaved family members.

BACKGROUND: Co-production of research into public health services has yet to demonstrate tangible benefits. Few studies have reported the impact of co-production on research outcomes. The previous studies of organ donation have identified challenges in engaging with public organizations responsible, gaining ethical approval for sensitive studies with the recently bereaved and difficulty in recruiting bereaved family members who were approached about organ donation. OBJECTIVE: To address these challenges, we designed the first large co-productive observational study to evaluate implementation of a new system of organ donation in Wales. This paper outlines the co-productive strategies that were designed to overcome known methodological challenges and reports what impact they had on resolving these challenges. DESIGN: Two-year co-produced study with multiple stakeholders with the specific intention of maximizing engagement with the National Health Service arm in Wales responsible for organ donation, and recruitment of bereaved family members whose perspectives are essential but commonly absent from studies. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: NHS Blood and Transplant, Welsh Government and multiple patient and public representatives who served as co-productive partners with the research team. RESULTS: Co-productive strategies enabled a smooth passage through four different ethics processes within the 10-week time frame, family member recruitment targets to be surpassed, sharing of routinely collected data on 100% of potential organ donor cases and development of further research capacity and capability in a critically under researched area. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Although expensive and time consuming, co-production was effective and added value to research processes and study outcomes.