Understanding the support needs of parents of children with obsessive-compulsive disorder: a qualitative descriptive study in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Caring for a child with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can be extremely difficult, yet evidence-based support strategies for parents/carers are limited. A detailed understanding of parent support needs is an important first step in intervention development and qualitative research with this focus is currently lacking. In this study, the viewpoints of parents and professionals were used to understand support needs and preferences when caring for a child with OCD. This qualitative descriptive study formed part of a wider UK-based project aimed at developing better support for parents of children with OCD. METHOD: Individual semi-structured interviews (and an optional one-week journal) with a purposive sample of parents of children and young people (CYP) with OCD, aged 8-18, and focus groups (or individual interviews where preferred) with a purposive sample of professionals supporting CYP with OCD. Data comprised transcripts of audio-recorded interviews and focus groups, and text from journals. Analysis was informed by the Framework approach involving inductive and deductive coding, supported by NVivo 12.0 software. Co-production methods were adopted throughout the research process, including the involvement of a parent co-researcher and charity collaborators. RESULTS: Interviews were undertaken with 20 parents, of which 16 completed a journal. Twenty-five professionals took part in a focus group or interview. Five key themes relating to parent support challenges and support needs/preferences were identified (1) Coping with the impact of OCD; (2) Getting help for my child; (3) Understanding parents' role; (4) Making sense of OCD; (5) Joined-up care. CONCLUSION: Parents caring for children with OCD have clear caregiver support needs which are currently not being met. Through triangulation of parent and professional accounts, this study has identified parent support challenges (e.g., emotional impact of OCD, visibility of caring role, misunderstanding about OCD) and support needs/ preferences (e.g., headspace/respite, compassion/sensitivity, guidance on accommodation) to lay the vital foundations for the development of effective parent support interventions. There is now an urgent need to develop and test an intervention to support parents in their caregiving role, with the aim of preventing and/or reducing their levels of burden and distress and ultimately, improving their quality of life.

'Keeping the plates spinning': a qualitative study of the complexity, barriers, and facilitators to caregiving in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for 50% of all heart failure cases; yet remains poorly understood, diagnosed, and managed, which adds complexity to the carer role. No study to date has investigated the experiences of informal carers of people with HFpEF. The aim of this study was to explore the role and experiences of informal carers of people with HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews involving carers alone, patients alone, or carer/patient dyads. The interviews were part of a larger programme of research in HFpEF. Participants were recruited from three regions of England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. Twenty-two interviews were conducted with 38 participants, 17 were informal carers. Three inter-related themes were identified: Theme 1, the complex nature of informal caregiving ('spinning plates'); Theme 2, the barriers to caregiving ('the spinning falters'); and Theme 3, the facilitators of caregiving ('keeping the plates spinning'). CONCLUSIONS: Informal carers play an important role in supporting people with HFpEF. The experience of caregiving in HFpEF is similar to that described for Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction, but complicated by challenges of limited information and support specific to HFpEF, and high burden of multi-morbidity. Healthcare providers should assess the needs of informal carers as part of patient care in HFpEF. Carers and patients would benefit from improved information and co-ordinated management of HFpEF and multi-morbidities. Helping carers 'keep the plates spinning' will require innovative approaches and co-ordination across the care continuum.

Cumulative complexity: a qualitative analysis of patients' experiences of living with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: To investigate how heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), within the context of limited clinical services, impacts patients' lives. METHODS AND RESULTS: Secondary thematic analysis informed by the cumulative complexity model (CCM), of interview transcripts from 77 people diagnosed with HFpEF and their carers. Four themes corresponding to the core concepts of workload, capacity, access, and outcome described in the CCM were generated. Theme 1: Shouldering a heavy workload described the many tasks expected of people living with HFpEF. Theme 2: The multiple threats to capacity described how patients and carers strived to engage with this work, but were often faced with multiple threats such as symptoms and mobility limitations. Deficient illness identity (Theme 3) reflects how HFpEF either was not recognized or was perceived as a more benign form of HF and therefore afforded less importance or priority. These themes contributed to a range of negative physical, social, and psychological outcomes and the perception of loss of control described in Theme 4: Spiraling complexity. CONCLUSIONS: The constellation of HFpEF, multi-morbidity, and ageing creates many demands that people with HFpEF are expected to manage. Concurrently, the same syndromes threaten their ability to physically enact this work. Patients' recollections of their interactions with health professionals suggest that there is a widespread misunderstanding of HFpEF, which can prohibit access to care that could potentially reduce or prevent deterioration.

Challenges in the management of people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in primary care: A qualitative study of general practitioner perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on the identification and management of people, including those from ethnic minority groups, with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: Qualitative study. Semi-structured, face-to-face or telephone interviews and focus groups were conducted with 35 GPs in England, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis was used to manage and interpret data. RESULTS: Themes presented reflect four inter-related challenges: GPs' 1) lack of understanding HFpEF, impacting on 2) difficulties in communicating the diagnosis, leading to 3) uncertainty in managing people with HFpEF, further hindered by (4) discontinuity across the primary/secondary interface. All were considered more challenging by GPs when managing people from different cultures and languages. DISCUSSION: HFpEF is not well understood by GPs, leading to diagnostic difficulty, management uncertainty and potential inequity in care offered. People with HFpEF are seen as complex, with multiple long-term conditions and requiring personalised care. Challenges in their management occur across the healthcare system. This study has identified learning needs for GPs around identification and on-going support for people with HFpEF in primary care. It will contribute to the development of more flexible and patient-centred pathways across the primary/secondary care interface.

Clinicians' and patients' experiences of managing heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), resulted in unprecedented societal and healthcare provision change, which has been implemented at pace. Little is known about the indirect impacts of these changes and what the future effects may be. AIM: To explore patients' and clinicians' experiences of managing heart failure (HF) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study in three regions of the UK: Cambridgeshire, Greater Manchester, and the West Midlands. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews (n = 30) were conducted with older adults with established HF and healthcare providers from primary and secondary health services involved in their care. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Compliance with the government guidance 'Stay at home, protect the NHS, and save lives' during the COVID-19 pandemic, and perceptions relating to risk from COVID-19 and underlying morbidity, drove 'being careful' behaviours and organisational changes. Enacting behavioural change and implementing organisational change resulted in opportunities and challenges for health and healthcare practice. CONCLUSION: Perception of risk led to significant behavioural and organisational change during the pandemic. Some changes described by both patients and clinicians, such as enhanced relationships and self-monitoring, present as opportunities, and consideration should be given as to how to maintain or develop these. Equally, indirect impacts of COVID-19 and the associated lockdown, such as disengagement and withdrawal, and the fallout from reluctance to access health services, should be acknowledged and interventions to address these challenges are needed.

Understanding the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a qualitative multiperspective study.

BACKGROUND: About half of all people with heart failure have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in which the heart is stiff. This type of heart failure is more common in older people with a history of hypertension, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Patients with HFpEF are often managed in primary care, sometimes in collaboration with specialists. Knowledge about how best to manage this growing population is limited, and there is a pressing need to improve care for these patients. AIM: To explore clinicians' and patients'/carers' perspectives and experiences about the management of HFpEF to inform the development of an improved model of care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multiperspective qualitative study involving primary and secondary care settings across the east of England, Greater Manchester, and the West Midlands. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. Transcribed data were analysed using framework analysis and informed by the normalisation process theory (NPT). RESULTS: In total, 50 patients, nine carers/relatives, and 73 clinicians were recruited. Difficulties with diagnosis, unclear illness perceptions, and management disparity were identified as important factors that may influence management of HFpEF. The NPT construct of coherence reflected what participants expressed about the need to improve the identification, understanding, and awareness of this condition in order to improve care. CONCLUSION: There is a pressing need to raise the public and clinical profile of HFpEF, develop a clear set of accepted practices concerning its management, and ensure that systems of care are accessible and attuned to the needs of patients with this condition.

Optimising Management of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Primary Care (OPTIMISE-HFpEF): rationale and protocol for a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less well understood than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with greater diagnostic difficulty and management uncertainty. AIM: The primary aim is to develop an optimised programme that is informed by the needs and experiences of people with HFpEF and healthcare providers. This article presents the rationale and protocol for the Optimising Management of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Primary Care (OPTIMISE-HFpEF) research programme. DESIGN & SETTING: This is a multi-method programme of research conducted in the UK. METHOD: OPTIMISE-HFpEF is a multi-site programme of research with three distinct work packages (WPs). WP1 is a systematic review of heart failure disease management programmes (HF-DMPs) tested in patients with HFpEF. WP2 has three components (a, b, c) that enable the characteristics, needs, and experiences of people with HFpEF, their carers, and healthcare providers to be understood. Qualitative enquiry (WP2a) with patients and providers will be conducted in three UK sites exploring patient and provider perspectives, with an additional qualitative component (WP2c) in one site to focus on transitions in care and carer perspectives. A longitudinal cohort study (WP2b), recruiting from four UK sites, will allow patients to be characterised and their illness trajectory observed across 1 year of follow-up. Finally, WP3 will synthesise the findings and conduct work to gain consensus on how best to identify and manage this patient group. RESULTS: Results from the four work packages will be synthesised to produce a summary of key learning points and possible solutions (optimised programme) which will be presented to a broad spectrum of stakeholders to gain consensus on a way forward. CONCLUSION: HFpEF is often described as the greatest unmet need in cardiology. The OPTIMISE-HFpEF programme aims to address this need in primary care, which is arguably the most appropriate setting for managing HFpEF.

Parents' agendas in paediatric clinical trial recruitment are different from researchers' and often remain unvoiced: a qualitative study.

Ensuring parents make an informed decision about their child's participation in a clinical trial is a challenge for practitioners as a parent's comprehension of a trial may differ from that intended by the practitioners responsible for recruitment. We explored what issues parents consider important when making a decision about participation in a paediatric clinical trial and their comprehension of these issues to inform future recruitment practice. This qualitative interview and observational study examined recruitment in four placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised clinical trials of medicines for children. Audio-recorded trial recruitment discussions between practitioners and parents (N = 41) were matched with semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 41). When making a decision about trial entry parents considered clinical benefit, child safety, practicalities of participation, research for the common good, access to medication and randomisation. Within these prioritised issues parents had specific misunderstandings, which had the potential to influence their decisions. While parents had many questions and concerns about trial participation which influenced their decision-making, they rarely voiced these during discussions about the trials with practitioners. Those involved in the recruitment of children to clinical trials need to be aware of parents' priorities and the sorts of misunderstandings that can arise with parents. Providing trial information that is tailored to what parents consider important in making a decision about a clinical trial may improve recruitment practice and ultimately benefit evidence-based paediatric medicine.

Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting children to clinical trials is perceived to be challenging. To identify ways to optimise recruitment and its conduct, we compared how parents and practitioners described their experiences of recruitment to clinical trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This qualitative study ran alongside four children's clinical trials in 11 UK research sites. It compared analyses of semi-structured interviews with analyses of audio-recordings of practitioner-family dialogue during trial recruitment discussions. Parents from 59 families were interviewed; 41 had participated in audio-recorded recruitment discussions. 31 practitioners were interviewed. Parents said little in the recruitment discussions contributing a median 16% of the total dialogue and asking a median of one question. Despite this, parents reported a positive experience of the trial approach describing a sense of comfort and safety. Even if they declined or if the discussion took place at a difficult time, parents understood the need to approach them and spoke of the value of research. Some parents viewed participation as an 'exciting' opportunity. By contrast, practitioners often worried that approaching families about research burdened families. Some practitioners implied that recruiting to clinical trials was something which they found aversive. Many were also concerned about the amount of information they had to provide and believed this overwhelmed families. Whilst some practitioners thought the trial information leaflets were of little use to families, parents reported that they used and valued the leaflets. However, both parties agreed that the leaflets were too long and wanted them to be more reader-friendly. CONCLUSIONS: Parents were more positive about being approached to enter their child into a clinical trial than practitioners anticipated. The concerns of some practitioners, that parents would be overburdened, were unfounded. Educating practitioners about how families perceive clinical trials and providing them with 'moral' support in approaching families may benefit paediatric research and, ultimately, patients.