Women's Health Hubs: a rapid mixed-methods evaluation.

Background: Women's sexual and reproductive health needs are complex and vary across the life course. They are met by a range of providers, professionals and venues. Provision is not well integrated, with inequalities in access. In some areas of the United Kingdom Women's Health Hubs have been established to improve provision, experience and outcomes for women, and to address inequalities and reduce costs. These models were established prior to the national implementation of Women's Health Hubs announced in the English 2022 Women's Health Strategy. Objective: To explore the 'current state of the art', mapping the United Kingdom landscape, and studying experiences of delivering and using Women's Health Hubs across England, defining key features and early markers of success to inform policy and practice. Design: A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: Mapping the Women's Health Hub landscape and context and developing a definition of Women's Health Hubs, informed by an online national survey of Women's Health Hub leaders, and interviews with regional stakeholders. In-depth evaluation in four hub sites, including interviews with staff and women, focus groups in local communities and documentary analysis. Interviews with national stakeholders and consolidation of findings from work packages 1 and 2. Fieldwork was undertaken from May 2022 to March 2023. The evaluation was initiated prior to the national scale-up of Women's Health Hubs announced in the 2022 Women's Health Strategy. Results: Most areas of the United Kingdom did not have a Women's Health Hub. Seventeen active services were identified, established between 2001 and 2022. Women's Health Hubs were diverse, predominantly GP-led, with different perspectives of the role and definition of a hub. Women using hubs reported positive experiences, finding services caring and convenient. Implementation facilitators included committed, collaborative leaders working across boundaries, sufficient workforce capacity and a supportive policy context. Challenges included access to funding, commissioning, workforce issues, facilities and equipment, stakeholder engagement and wider system integration, priorities and pressures. Leaders were committed to addressing inequalities, but evidence of impact was still emerging. Limitations: It was challenging to locate models; therefore, some may have been missed. Data availability limited assessment of impact, including inequalities. Some population groups were not represented in the data, and the evaluation was more provider-oriented. It was not possible to develop a typology of Women's Health Hubs as planned due to heterogeneity in models. Conclusions: Existing Women's Health Hub models were providing integrated approaches to meet local needs. Many were at an early stage of development. Evidence of system-level impact and costs was still emerging. Women's Health Hubs may widen inequalities if models are more accessible to advantaged groups. The important role of committed leaders in existing 'bottom-up' models may limit scalability and sustainability. Findings suggest that national scale-up will take time and requires funding and that it is necessary to design models according to local needs and resources. In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care announced funding to establish a Women's Health Hub in every Integrated Care System in England. Future work: Future evaluation should consider system-level impact and costs, explore unintended consequences and test assumptions. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135589) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

In the National Health Service, care for women's health issues such as heavy periods, menopause, contraception and abortion is provided by different services, such as GPs and hospital gynaecology and sexual health clinics. Services are not always joined up and often women find it hard to access care. To improve care, United Kingdom National Health Service teams have set up Women's Health Hubs. Women's Health Hubs involve a group of health professionals working together to provide more joined-up community-based services to women throughout their lives. This evaluation aimed to explore why, where and how Women's Health Hubs have been set up and what they have achieved and to understand staff and patient experiences. The results will be shared with the government and National Health Service as new Women's Health Hubs are set up. The evaluation included a survey of people who have set up hubs across the United Kingdom and interviews with women's health leaders in England. In four hubs in England, we talked to local women and staff, and reviewed documents. We found 17 hubs, and most areas of the United Kingdom did not have one. Every hub was different, with different views about how hubs should work. Most were set up to improve access and experiences for women, and reduce pressure on other services. Six hubs had involved women in developing their service but most had not. Hubs offered appointments with health professionals, usually in GP or community clinics. The most common services were for coil fitting, menopause and heavy periods. The set-up of hubs was helped by passionate leaders who involved the right people, and identified funding and time. Challenges included National Health Service pressures and a lack of funding, clinic space and staff. Women who have used hubs report a good experience, with caring and convenient services. More work is needed to understand how hubs can improve care for all women, including unfair differences in care.

Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing.

Although research has demonstrated that transport infrastructure development can have positive and negative health-related impacts, most of this research has not considered mental health and wellbeing separately from physical health. There is also limited understanding of whether and how any effects might be experienced differently across population groups, whether this differs according to the stage of development (e.g. planning, construction), and how changes to planned infrastructure may affect mental health and wellbeing. This paper presents a protocol for the Wellbeing Impact Study of HS2 (WISH2), which seeks to address these questions using a high-speed rail development in the UK as an applied example. WISH2 is a 10-year, integrated, longitudinal, mixed-methods project using general practices (primary medical care providers in the UK) as an avenue for participant recruitment and for providing a geographically defined population for which aggregated data on mental health indicators are available. The research comprises: (i) a combined longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional cohort study involving multiple waves of survey data collection and data from medical records; (ii) longitudinal, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with residents and community stakeholders from exposed areas; (iii) analysis of administrative data aggregated at the general practice population level; and (iv) health economic analysis of mental health and wellbeing impacts. The study findings will support the development of strategies to reduce negative impacts and/or enhance positive mental health and wellbeing impacts of high-speed rail developments and other large-scale infrastructure projects.

Implementing mental health support teams in schools and colleges: the perspectives of programme implementers and service providers.

Background: Between 2018 and 2025, a national implementation programme is funding more than 500 new mental health support teams (MHSTs) in England, to work in education settings to deliver evidence-based interventions to children with mild to moderate mental health problems and support emotional wellbeing for all pupils. A new role, education mental health practitioner (EMHP), has been created for the programme.Aims: A national evaluation explored the development, implementation and early progress of 58 MHSTs in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. This paper reports the views and experiences of people involved in MHST design, implementation and service delivery at a local, regional and national level.Methods: Data are reported from in-depth interviews with staff in five Trailblazer sites (n = 71), and the programme's regional (n = 52) and national leads (n = 21).Results: Interviewees universally welcomed the creation of MHSTs, but there was a lack of clarity about their purpose, concerns that the standardised CBT interventions being offered were not working well for some children, and challenges retaining EMHPs.Conclusions: This study raises questions about MHSTs' service scope, what role they should play in addressing remaining gaps in mental health provision, and how EMHPs can develop the skills to work effectively with diverse groups.

New and emerging technology for adult social care - the example of home sensors with artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

Background: Digital technology is a focus within the NHS and social care as a way to improve care and address pressures. Sensor-based technology with artificial intelligence capabilities is one type of technology that may be useful, although there are gaps in evidence that need to be addressed. Objective: This study evaluates how one example of a technology using home-based sensors with artificial intelligence capabilities (pseudonymised as 'IndependencePlus') was implemented in three case study sites across England. The focus of this study was on decision-making processes and implementation. Design: Stage 1 consisted of a rapid literature review, nine interviews and three project design groups. Stage 2 involved qualitative data collection from three social care sites (20 interviews), and three interviews with technology providers and regulators. Results: • It was expected that the technology would improve care planning and reduce costs for the social care system, aid in prevention and responding to needs, support independent living and provide reassurance for those who draw on care and their carers. • The sensors were not able to collect the necessary data to create anticipated benefits. Several technological aspects of the system reduced its flexibility and were complex for staff to use. • There appeared to be no systematic decision-making process in deciding whether to adopt artificial intelligence. In its absence, a number of contextual factors influenced procurement decisions. • Incorporating artificial intelligence-based technology into existing models of social care provision requires alterations to existing funding models and care pathways, as well as workforce training. • Technology-enabled care solutions require robust digital infrastructure, which is lacking for many of those who draw on care and support. • Short-term service pressures and a sense of crisis management are not conducive to the culture that is needed to reap the potential longer-term benefits of artificial intelligence. Limitations: Significant recruitment challenges (especially regarding people who draw on care and carers) were faced, particularly in relation to pressures from COVID-19. Conclusions: This study confirmed a number of common implementation challenges, and adds insight around the specific decision-making processes for a technology that has been implemented in social care. We have also identified issues related to managing and analysing data, and introducing a technology focused on prevention into an environment which is focused on dealing with crises. This has helped to fill gaps in the literature and share practical lessons with commissioners, social care providers, technology providers and policy-makers. Future work: We have highlighted the implications of our findings for future practice and shared these with case study sites. We have also developed a toolkit for others implementing new technology into adult social care based on our findings (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/brace/ai-and-social-care-booklet-final-digital-accessible.pdf). As our findings mirror the previous literature on common implementation challenges and a tendency of some technology to 'over-promise and under-deliver', more work is needed to embed findings in policy and practice. Study registration: Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (ERN_13-1085AP41, ERN_21-0541 and ERN_21-0541A). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HSDR 16/138/31 - Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Centre).

Social care is facing pressures due to a lack of funding and staff and COVID-19. One way to ease pressures is by using digital technology. We looked at a technology that places sensors around people's homes to monitor changes in daily activity, including how this technology was brought into social care and how it works. We reviewed evidence and spoke with experts (including people who draw on care and support) to finalise the study design. We then interviewed people from social care organisations, carers, technology developers and regulators. • Organisations expected the technology to do a lot, including preventing illness, assessing needs, supporting independent living, reassuring people drawing on care (and their carers) and saving money. • Some social care decision-makers may not have the skills and understanding needed to make decisions about the use of new technology, and lacked a strategic approach to decision-making. • It was difficult to collect the data needed to use the sensors correctly, which meant the technology did not meet expectations. • Care staff were trained on how to use the sensors, although many struggled to make sense of the data they collected. • Social care is often focused on dealing with a crisis, rather than preventing one. This means a culture change is needed to use the sensors properly.

Our research confirmed challenges in using new technology in social care. We also found new problems, such as dealing with large amounts of health data, asking care staff to use this information without enough training, and introducing a technology focused on prevention into an environment which is focused on dealing with crises. Our findings have helped to fill gaps in knowledge and will let us share practical learning with those introducing new technology in social care.

Communicating research evidence to boards in health and care organisations: A scoping study.

Boards in health and care organisations in England play a key role in the governance, strategy, direction and culture of an organisation. It is therefore important to ensure that board decisions are informed by the best available evidence from a range of sources, including service evaluations, organisational performance data, research and evidence-based guidelines. However, there is a scarcity of evidence about how boards use research evidence, defined as evidence stemming from generalisable empirical research, to carry out their roles. THIS Institute commissioned RAND Europe and the Health Services Management Centre (HSMC) at the University of Birmingham to conduct a scoping study on how health and care boards use research evidence. The focus was on NHS Trust boards and the boards of Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) or Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). The principal data collection method was qualitative interviews with diverse members of health and care boards to obtain insights into the perceptions and experiences of board members in a range of roles and circumstances. The findings are predominantly based on evidence from 17 interviews. Given the importance of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of this research, we were also asked to consider whether and how research evidence was used by boards in shaping their response to COVID-19. We focused on two areas specifically: (i) personal protective equipment (PPE) and (ii) the use of remote consultations and remote patient monitoring.

Mixed-methods exploration of views on choice in a university asymptomatic COVID-19 testing programme.

Asymptomatic COVID-19 testing programmes are being introduced in higher education institutions, but stakeholder views regarding the acceptability of mandating or incentivizing participation remain little understood. A mixed-method study (semi-structured interviews and a survey including open and closed questions) was undertaken in a case study university with a student testing programme. Survey data were analysed descriptively; analysis for interviews was based on the framework method. Two hundred and thirty-nine people participated in the study: 213 in the survey (189 students, 24 staff), and 26 in interviews (19 students, 7 staff). There was majority (62%) but not universal support for voluntary participation, with a range of concerns expressed about the potentially negative effects of mandating testing. Those who supported mandatory testing tended to do so on the grounds that it would protect others. There was also majority (64%) opposition to penalties for refusing to test. Views on restricting access to face-to-face teaching for non-participants were polarized. Three-quarters (75%) supported incentives, though there were some concerns about effectiveness and unintended consequences. Participants emphasized the importance of communication about the potential benefits of testing. Preserving the voluntariness of participation in student asymptomatic testing programmes is likely to be the most ethically sound policy unless circumstances change.

'Modelling social exclusion in a diagnostically-mixed sample of people with severe mental illness'.

BACKGROUND: Social inclusion is an important indicator of recovery in individuals with severe mental illness. The Social Inclusion Questionnaire User Experience (SInQUE) is a new measure of social inclusion for mental health service users which assesses five domains (consumption, production, access to services, social integration and civil engagement). It has good psychometric properties and is acceptable to service users and mental health professionals. It is not clear whether individuals with different diagnostic conditions experience a similar reduction in social inclusion. AIMS: (1) Investigate whether current social inclusion differs between diagnostic groups (people with schizophrenia/other psychotic disorders, common mental disorder or personality disorder); (2) Identify factors associated with lower social inclusion; (3) Examine associations between social inclusion and stigma, quality of life and loneliness. METHOD: Mental health service users with psychotic disorder, personality disorder or common mental disorder, living in the community, completed the SInQUE, alongside other validated outcome measures. Multiple regression investigated associations. RESULTS: About 192 service users (55% with psychotic disorder; 26% with common mental disorder; 19% with personality disorder). Current social inclusion did not vary according to diagnosis, except for the sub-domain of productivity, where individuals with personality disorder were more socially included than the other two groups. Lower social inclusion was associated with older age (p = .008), lack of higher education (p < .001), more previous admissions (p = .005), severity of current symptoms and greater experienced stigma (p = .006) and anticipated stigma (p = .035). Greater social inclusion was associated with better quality of life (p < .001) and less loneliness (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to social inclusion in individuals with severe mental health problems include factors related to the illness, such as symptom severity and external factors, such as stigma and discrimination. Social inclusion is a recovery goal and should be routinely assessed. Increasing people's social inclusion benefits service users in terms of improved mental health, better quality of life and reduced loneliness.

Validity, reliability, acceptability, and utility of the Social Inclusion Questionnaire User Experience (SInQUE): a clinical tool to facilitate social inclusion amongst people with severe mental health problems.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with severe mental health problems are at risk of social exclusion, which may complicate their recovery. Mental health and social care staff have, until now, had no valid or reliable way of assessing their clients' social inclusion. The Social Inclusion Questionnaire User Experience (SInQUE) was developed to address this. It assesses five domains: social integration; productivity; consumption; access to services; and political engagement, in the year prior to first psychiatric admission (T1) and the year prior to interview (T2) from which a total score at each time point can be calculated. AIMS: To establish the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the SInQUE in individuals with a broad range of psychiatric diagnoses receiving care from community mental health services and its utility for mental health staff. METHOD: Participants were 192 mental health service users with psychosis, personality disorder, or common mental disorder (e.g., depression, anxiety) who completed the SInQUE alongside other validated outcome measures. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a sub-sample of 30 participants and inter-rater reliability was assessed in 11 participants. SInQUE ratings of 28 participants were compared with those of a sibling with no experience of mental illness to account for shared socio-cultural factors. Acceptability and utility of the tool were assessed using completion rates and focus groups with staff. RESULTS: The SInQUE demonstrated acceptable convergent validity. The total score and the Social Integration domain score were strongly correlated with quality of life, both in the full sample and in the three diagnostic groups. Discriminant validity and test-retest reliability were established across all domains, although the test-retest reliability on scores for the Service Access and Political Engagement domains prior to first admission to hospital (T1) was lower than other domains. Inter-rater reliability was excellent for all domains at T1 and T2. CONCLUSIONS: The component of the SInQUE that assesses current social inclusion has good psychometric properties and can be recommended for use by mental health staff.

Reduced parahippocampal volume and psychosis symptoms in Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVE: Establishing structural imaging correlates of psychosis symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) could localise pathology and target symptomatic treatment. This study investigated whether psychosis symptoms are associated with visuoperceptual or frontal networks, and whether regional brain volume differences could be linked with the paranoid (persecutory delusions) or misidentification (misidentification phenomena and/or hallucinations) subtypes. METHODS: A total of 104 patients with probable AD (AddNeuroMed; 47 psychotic, 57 non-psychotic), followed up for at least one year with structural MRI at baseline. Presence and subtype of psychosis symptoms were established using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Volume and cortical thickness measures in visuoperceptual and frontal networks were explored using multivariate analyses to compare with both a global (psychotic versus not) and subtype-specific approach, adjusting for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: There was a significant main effect of psychosis subtypes on the ventral visual stream region of interest (F30,264  = 1.65, p = 0.021, np2  = 0.16). This was explained by reduced left parahippocampal gyrus volume (F1,97  = 11.1, p = 0.001, np2  = 0.10). When comparisons were made across psychosis subtypes, left parahippocampal volume reduction remained significant (F7,95  = 3.94, p = 0.011, np2  = 0.11) and was greatest for the misidentification and mixed subtypes compared to paranoid and non-psychotic groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings implicate the ventral visual stream in psychosis in AD, consistent with integrative theories regarding origins of psychosis, and provide further evidence for a role in the misidentification subtype. Specifically, reduced volume in the parahippocampal gyrus is implicated in misidentification delusion formation, which we hypothesise is due to its role in context attribution. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.