Factors influencing effective data sharing between health care and social care regarding the care of older people: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Background: Sharing data about patients between health and social care organisations and professionals, such as details of their medication, is essential to provide co-ordinated and person-centred care. While professionals can share data in a number of ways - for example, through shared electronic record systems or multidisciplinary team meetings - there are many factors that make sharing data across the health and social care boundary difficult. These include professional hierarchies, inaccessible electronic systems and concerns around confidentiality. Data-sharing is particularly important for the care of older people, as they are more likely to have multiple or long-term conditions; understanding is needed on how to enable effective data-sharing. Objectives: To identify factors perceived as influencing effective data-sharing, including the successful adoption of interventions to improve data-sharing, between healthcare and social care organisations and professionals regarding the care of older people. Methods: MEDLINE and seven further databases were searched (in March 2023) for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Relevant websites were searched and citation-chasing completed on included studies. Studies were included if they focused on older people, as defined by the study, and data-sharing, defined as the transfer of information between healthcare and social care organisations, or care professionals, regarding a patient, and were conducted in the United Kingdom. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a final set of studies which were analysed using framework synthesis. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Wallace checklist. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups were consulted throughout the project. Results: Twenty-four studies were included; most scored highly on the quality appraisal checklist. Four main themes were identified. Within Goals, we found five purposes of data-sharing: joint (health and social care) assessment, integrated case management, transitions from hospital to home, for residents of care homes, and for palliative care. In Relationships, building interprofessional relationships, and therefore trust and respect, between professionals supported data-sharing, while the presence of professional prejudices and mistrust hindered it. Interorganisational Processes and procedures, such as a shared vision of care and operationalisation of formal agreements, for example data governance, supported data-sharing. Within Technology and infrastructure, the use of technology as a tool supported data-sharing, as did professionals' awareness of the wider care system. There were also specific factors influencing data-sharing related to its purpose; for example, there was a lack of legal frameworks in the area of palliative care. Limitations: Data-sharing was usually discussed in the context of wider initiatives, for example integrated care, which meant the information provided was often limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impacts on ways of working; none of our included studies were conducted during or since the pandemic. Conclusions: Our findings indicate the importance of building interprofessional relationships and ensuring that professionals are able to share data in multiple ways. Future work: Exploration of the impact of new technologies and ways of working adopted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic on data-sharing is needed. Additionally, research should explore patient experience and the prevention of digital exclusion among health and social care professionals. Study registration: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO CRD42023416621. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135660), as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538, and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Health and social care organisations and professionals need to share data about older people. Data ­ for example, details of medication ­ can be shared in different ways, for example electronic records systems, team meetings. Sharing data is important, especially for people with multiple or long-term conditions as they may need co-ordinated help from health and social care services. However, professionals often find it difficult to share data. For example, they may have concerns about confidentiality or may not have access to the same electronic record systems. This review investigated factors that influence data-sharing between health and social care. We found 24 studies that used methods such as focus groups or interviews. We found five main purposes of sharing data in the studies: to assess people's need for health and social care to co-ordinate care for people with existing needs to help people move from hospital to home to care for people living in care homes to support end-of-life care. Factors that help health and social care professionals share data include: having trust and respect for each other having suitable policies and processes in place between their organisations having an awareness of why other professionals need data. New technologies can help professionals share data, but they need to be part of the normal way that people work. These findings could help to improve data-sharing as they show that professionals need multiple ways of sharing data. They also suggest more research is needed so that new technology supports data-sharing. Stakeholders ­ for example, doctors, social workers, and public and patient representatives ­ provided feedback throughout the project. The review contains studies published between 1995 and March 2023.

Valuing the health benefits of nature-based recreational physical activity in England.

Physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of several non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Natural environments support recreational PA. Using data including a representative cross-sectional survey of the English population, we estimated the annual value of nature-based PA conducted in England in 2019 in terms of avoided healthcare and societal costs of disease. Population-representative data from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey (n = 47,580; representing 44,386,756) were used to estimate the weekly volume of nature-based recreational PA by adults in England in 2019. We used epidemiological dose-response data to calculate incident cases of six NCDs (ischaemic heart disease (IHD), ischaemic stroke (IS), type 2 diabetes (T2D), colon cancer (CC), breast cancer (BC) and major depressive disorder (MDD)) prevented through nature-based PA, and estimated associated savings using published costs of healthcare, informal care and productivity losses. We investigated additional savings resulting from hypothetical increases in: (a) visitor PA and (b) visitor numbers. In 2019, 22million adults > 16 years of age in England visited natural environments at least weekly. At reported volumes of nature-based PA, we estimated that 550 cases of IHD, 168 cases of IS, 1,410 cases of T2D, 41 cases of CC, 37 cases of BC and 10,552 cases of MDD were prevented, creating annual savings of £108.7million (95 % uncertainty interval: £70.3million; £150.3million). Nature-based recreational PA in England results in reduced burden of disease and considerable annual savings through prevention of priority NCDs. Strategies that increase nature-based PA could lead to further reductions in the societal burden of NCDs.

Remote monitoring for long-term physical health conditions: an evidence and gap map.

Background: Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions. Objectives: The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies. Review methods: (Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project. Results: We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality. Limitations: Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult. Conclusions and future work: The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions. Review registration: A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.

Remote monitoring is when an aspect of a patient's health, such as blood pressure, is measured at home, and this information is passed to a healthcare professional. We created an evidence and gap map for remote monitoring in adults with long-term physical health conditions. The map is presented as an interactive online table, which can be used to find the number and quality of systematic reviews that address specific questions (e.g. remote monitoring in diabetes). The map does not summarise findings from the reviews (e.g. whether remote monitoring works or not). We found 72 reviews investigating whether remote monitoring works and/or how to implement it, including whether it is acceptable to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Thirty-seven reviews included studies from the United Kingdom. The most common health conditions were heart disease, diabetes and lung conditions. There was little or no evidence for some health conditions (e.g. epilepsy). Data from patients were collected mainly using common devices (e.g. heart rate monitors) and passed to healthcare providers using computer applications, websites and telephone calls. Most feedback received by patients was motivational/educational. There was evidence about the acceptability of remote monitoring for patients, but little for carers and healthcare professionals. Reviews focused on whether remote monitoring affected physical and mental health, health service use, acceptability or implementation. More than half the included reviews were judged to be low quality; however, they may still include high-quality studies. The map could help to design and deliver remote monitoring programmes and guide further research and technology development. Stakeholder and public and patient representatives provided feedback throughout the project. The map contains reviews published between 2018 and March 2022.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map.

Background: Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions. Objectives: The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care. Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations. Main Results: We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration. Authors' Conclusions: Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework.

Biodiversity is a cornerstone of human health and well-being. However, while evidence of the contributions of nature to human health is rapidly building, research into how biodiversity relates to human health remains limited in important respects. In particular, a better mechanistic understanding of the range of pathways through which biodiversity can influence human health is needed. These pathways relate to both psychological and social processes as well as biophysical processes. Building on evidence from across the natural, social and health sciences, we present a conceptual framework organizing the pathways linking biodiversity to human health. Four domains of pathways-both beneficial as well as harmful-link biodiversity with human health: (i) reducing harm (e.g. provision of medicines, decreasing exposure to air and noise pollution); (ii) restoring capacities (e.g. attention restoration, stress reduction); (iii) building capacities (e.g. promoting physical activity, transcendent experiences); and (iv) causing harm (e.g. dangerous wildlife, zoonotic diseases, allergens). We discuss how to test components of the biodiversity-health framework with available analytical approaches and existing datasets. In a world with accelerating declines in biodiversity, profound land-use change, and an increase in non-communicable and zoonotic diseases globally, greater understanding of these pathways can reinforce biodiversity conservation as a strategy for the promotion of health for both people and nature. We conclude by identifying research avenues and recommendations for policy and practice to foster biodiversity-focused public health actions.