In defense of quantitative metrics in researcher assessments.

Qualitative assessments of researchers are resource-intensive, untenable in nonmeritocratic settings, and error-prone. Although often derided, quantitative metrics could help improve research practices if they are rigorous, field-adjusted, and centralized.

Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies.

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.

A qualitative approach to assess the opinion of physicians about the challenges and prospects of pharmacogenomic testing implementation in clinical practice in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) constitutes an important part of personalized medicine and has several clinical applications. PGx role in clinical practice is known, however, it has not been widely adopted yet. In this study, we aim to investigate the perspectives of Greek physicians regarding the implementation of PGx testing in clinical practice and the key issues associated with it. METHODS: Fourteen interviews were conducted with physicians of various specialties for which PGx applications are available. A semi-structured interview guide was utilized based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) context and the Diffusion of Innovation model. Transcripts were coded independently and compared by two members of the research team. Descriptive statistics were generated using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Six main themes emerged: awareness and use of PGx testing; source of information; key stakeholders of the PGx supply chain, their interactions and change agents; clinical benefit and significance of PGx testing; barriers and lack of reimbursement; and recommendations to boost the PGx adoption rate. Most respondents were aware of PGx applications, but only three had already recommended PGx testing. Peer-reviewed journals along with clinical guidelines were regarded as the most used source of information while stakeholders of the PGx supply chain were discussed. PGx was considered that promote patient-centered care, enhance medication clinical effectiveness, decrease the risk of side effects, and reduce healthcare costs. Lack of reimbursement, scarcity of resources, and high PGx cost were the foremost barriers affecting PGx adoption. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that if case PGx testing is reimbursed and physicians' training is reinforced, PGx implementation will be boosted and improved shortly.

A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement.

In animal experiments, blinding (also known as masking) is a methodological strategy to reduce the risk that scientists, animal care staff, or other staff involved in the research may consciously or subconsciously influence the outcome. Lack of masking has been shown to correlate with an overestimation of treatment efficacy and false positive findings. We conducted exploratory interviews across academic and a commercial setting to discuss the implementation of masking at four stages of the experiment: during allocation and intervention, during the conduct of the experiment, during the outcome assessment, and during the data analysis. The objective was to explore the awareness, engagement, perceptions, and the barriers to implementing masking in animal experiments. We conducted multiple interviews, to explore 30 different experiments, and found examples of excellent practice but also areas where masking was rarely implemented. Significant barriers arose from the operational and informatic systems implemented. These systems have prioritised the management of welfare without considering how to allow researchers to use masking in their experiments. For some experiments, there was a conflict between the management of welfare for an individual animal versus delivering a robust experiment where all animals are treated in the same manner. We identified other challenges related to the level of knowledge on the purpose of masking or the implementation and the work culture. The exploration of these issues provides insight into how we, as a community, can identify the most significant barriers in a given research environment. Here, we offer practical solutions to enable researchers to implement masking as standard. To move forward, we need both the individual scientists to embrace the use of masking and the facility managers and institutes to engage and provide a framework that supports the scientists.

BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: 1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing. METHODS: Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: 32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.

Physician knowledge, practice patterns, and barriers encountered regarding guideline-concordant use of bone modifying agents for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastasis, but not for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). Physicians beliefs and practices regarding BMA therapy are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study with embedded Likert-scale elements. Study participants were physicians who treat prostate cancer, located within an academic cancer center or an affiliated community-based network. Participants were asked about their experiences and practice patterns regarding BMA therapy. Participants used Likert-scale items to identify the most common barriers to guideline-concordant BMA use and the most effective potential interventions. Participants were subsequently asked to rank the three most common barriers and the three most effective interventions to reduce underuse (for CRPC) and overuse (for CSPC). RESULTS: Nineteen physicians were invited and 15 participated; one physician did not answer some questions as outside of their practice scope. All were aware of the recommendation for BMAs in CRPC. 14% (2/14) were unaware of the recommendation against BMA use for CSPC; an additional 29% (4/14) believed that BMA use could be appropriate for CSPC depending on the metastatic disease burden. 36% (5/14) were unaware of recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density. The most common barriers (occurring "often" or "sometimes") were obtaining dental clearance (11/15) and insufficient clinic time (6/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce underuse were dental navigation (11/15) and electronic medical record (EMR)-based guidance (9/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce overuse were peer-to-peer education (14/15) and EMR-based guidance (13/15). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of guideline recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density and against BMA use for CSPC was good, but not complete. Dental navigation, peer-to-peer education, and EMR-based guidance were preferred intervention strategies to improve guideline-concordant use.

Attitudes toward the American Cancer Society's 2020 cervical cancer screening guidelines: A qualitative study of a national sample of US clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for cervical cancer screening. These guidelines propose two major changes from current practice: initiating screening at age 25 years and using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, and therefore understanding clinician attitudes is important to facilitate practice change. METHODS: Interviews with a national sample of clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening in a variety of settings explored attitudes toward the two major changes from the 2020 ACS cervical cancer screening guidelines. Clinicians participated in 30- to 60-min interviews exploring their attitudes toward various aspects of cervical cancer screening. Qualitative analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seventy clinicians participated from across the United States. Few respondents were initiating screening at age 25 years, and none were using primary HPV testing. However, over half would be willing to adopt these practices if supported by scientific evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional societies, lack of laboratory availability and insurance coverage, limited autonomy within large health care systems, and concerns related to missed disease. CONCLUSIONS: Few clinicians have adopted screening initiation or primary HPV testing, as recommended by the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to adopting these changes. Implementation may be facilitated via professional organization endorsement, clinician education, and laboratory, health care system, and insurance support. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The main changes to current practices were to initiate screening at age 25 years instead of age 21 years and to screen using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing rather than cytology alone or in combination with HPV testing. We performed in-depth interviews with 70 obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their attitudes toward these guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2020 ACS guidelines, but over half were open to changing practice if the changes were supported by evidence and recommended by professional medical organizations. Barriers to adoption included the lack of endorsement by professional medical organizations, logistical issues, and concerns about missed disease.

A qualitative approach to understanding the drivers of unequal receipt of definitive therapy for Black men with prostate cancer in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Despite mandated insurance coverage since 2006 and robust health infrastructure in urban settings with high concentrations of minority patients, race-based disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) treatment persist in Massachusetts. In this qualitative study, the authors sought to identify factors driving inequities in PCa treatment in Massachusetts. METHODS: Four hospitals offering PCa treatment in Massachusetts were selected using a case-mix approach. Purposive sampling was used to conduct semistructured interviews with hospital stakeholders. Additional interviews were conducted with representatives from grassroots organizations providing PCa education. Two study staff coded the interviews to identify major themes and recurrent patterns. RESULTS: Of the 35 informants invited, 25 participated in the study. Although national disparities in PCa outcomes were readily discussed, one half of the informants were unaware that PCa disparities existed in Massachusetts. Informants and grassroots organization representatives acknowledged that patients with PCa are willing to face transportation barriers to receive treatment from trusted and accommodating institutions. Except for chief equity officers, most health care providers lacked knowledge on accessing or using metrics regarding racial disparities in cancer outcomes. Although community outreach was recognized as a potential strategy to reduce treatment disparities and engender trust, informants were often unable to provide a clear implementation plan. CONCLUSIONS: This statewide qualitative study builds on existing quantitative data on the nature and extent of disparities. It highlights knowledge gaps in recognizing and addressing racial disparities in PCa treatment in Massachusetts. Improved provider awareness, the use of disparity metrics, and strategic community engagement may ensure equitable access to PCa treatment. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Despite mandated insurance and urban health care access, racial disparities in prostate cancer treatment persist in Massachusetts. This qualitative study revealed that, although national disparities were acknowledged, awareness about local disparities are lacking. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of ancillary services, including translators, rideshares, and navigators, in the delivery of care. In addition, whereas hospital stakeholders were aware of collected equity outcomes, they were unsure whether and who is monitoring equity metrics. Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that community outreach showed promise in ensuring equitable access to prostate cancer treatment. Nevertheless, most interviewed stakeholders lacked clear implementation plans.

"To prescribe or not to prescribe, that is the question": Perspectives on opioid prescribing for chronic, cancer-related pain from clinicians who treat pain in survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Opioid pain management in cancer survivorship is a complex and understudied topic. METHODS: The authors conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews to understand clinician approaches to opioid pain management in chronic cancer pain and to generate ideas for improvement. They used a rigorous, inductive, qualitative, descriptive approach to examine clinician (n = 20) perspectives about opioid pain management in survivorship, including oncologists (n = 5), palliative care clinicians (n = 8), primary care clinicians (n = 5), and pain management specialists (n = 2). RESULTS: The findings indicated that no consistent medical home exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors and that there are fundamental differences in how each subspecialty approaches chronic pain management in survivorship (e.g., "Do we think of this as noncancer pain or cancer pain?… This is in this limbo zone-this gray zone-because it's cancer-related pain, right?"). Simultaneously, clinicians are influenced by their peers' perceptions of their opioid prescribing decisions, sparking intraprofessional tension when disagreement occurs. In these instances, clinicians described overthinking and doubting their clinical decision-making as well as a sense of judgment, pressure, and/or shame. Finally, clinicians acknowledged a fear of consequences for opioid prescribing decisions. Specifically, participants cited conflict with patients, sometimes escalating to aggression and threats of violence, as well as potential disciplinary actions and/or legal consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Participants suggested that opportunities to improve chronic cancer pain care include developing clear, systematic guidance for chronic cancer pain management, facilitating clinician communication and consultation, creating tailored survivorship care plans in partnership with patients, and developing accessible, evidence-based, complementary pain treatments.

Hit it hard: qualitative patient perspectives on the optimisation of immune checkpoint inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape of many cancers, including melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Randomised trials are evaluating outcomes from reduced ICI treatment schedules with the aim of improving quality of life, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to provide insight into patient and carer's perspectives of these trials. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted with 31 people with stage IV melanoma, RCC, or caregivers for people receiving ICI. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: 1) "Treatment and clinic visits provide reassurance": reducing hospital visits may not improve quality of life. 2) "Assessment of personal risk versus benefit": the decision to participate in an ICI optimisation trial is influenced by treatment response, experience of toxicity and perceived logistical benefits based on the individual's circumstances. 3) "Pre-existing experience and beliefs about how treatment and trials work", including the belief that more treatment is better, influence views around ICI optimisation trials. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into recruitment challenges and recommends strategies to enhance recruitment for ongoing ICI optimisation trials. These findings will influence the design of future ICI optimisation trials ensuring they are acceptable to patients.

Implementing Enhanced Recovery Pathways: A Qualitative Study of Factors That Distinguished Higher Performing Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing enhanced recovery pathways, with a focus on identifying factors that distinguished hospitals achieving greater levels of implementation success. BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways, the implementation of these complex interventions varies widely. While there is a growing list of contextual factors that may affect implementation, little is known about which factors distinguish between higher and lower levels of implementation success. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 168 perioperative leaders, clinicians, and staff from 8 US hospitals participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we coded interview transcripts and conducted a thematic analysis of implementation barriers and facilitators. We also rated the perceived effect of factors on different levels of implementation success, as measured by hospitals' adherence with 9 process measures over time. RESULTS: Across all hospitals, factors with a consistently positive effect on implementation included information-sharing practices and the implementation processes of planning and engaging. Consistently negative factors included the complexity of the pathway itself, hospitals' infrastructure, and the implementation process of "executing" (particularly in altering electronic health record systems). Hospitals with the greatest improvement in process measure adherence were distinguished by clinicians' positive knowledge and beliefs about pathways and strong leadership support from both clinicians and executives. CONCLUSION: We draw upon diverse perspectives from across the perioperative continuum of care to qualitatively describe implementation factors most strongly associated with successful implementation of enhanced recovery pathways.

Stigma and discrimination and its homeless and health system contexts in south London: an ethnographic case study.

BACKGROUND: Stigma and discrimination are widely recognised as core social determinants of health. There is a gap in understanding how to intervene at societal and systems level to address stigma. This study aims to theorise how particular care and support systems shape experiences of stigma as it relates to homelessness, and to then develop systems-level interventions. METHODS: We present findings from an ongoing longitudinal ethnographic study, which started June 2022, in south London. Data collection included interviews with people managing, delivering, and using homelessness services (n=41 interviews, two focus groups); participant observation across a range of service settings (>70 h, principally in five sites), and documentary analysis. Participants and research sites gave informed consent. The study was framed by Bourdieu's social practice theory, which structures data collection and analysis around the power and resources individuals have within particular social contexts. We did the analyses using thematic and grounded approaches to qualitative data. FINDINGS: We found that across homeless and health services there was in-depth awareness of stigma and discrimination, but that, collectively, we are "stuck in a rut" in responding to stigma. A proximate challenge was limited clarity and agreement across systems on the nature of the issues involved. A deeper analysis also suggested specific organisational structures and ways of thinking within homelessness and health systems that limit collective discussion and agreement on social and systemic responses to stigma. We also collected data on how stigma was experienced, delineating different forms of stigma and discrimination and where and how they take shape, focusing on enacted, anticipated, and internalised stigma. We also explored how stigma was actively managed and overcome, and how different intersections of systems of inequality produce varying forms of stigma and discrimination. INTERPRETATION: Our study provides insight into how stigma and discrimination could potentially be addressed systemically within homelessness and health systems. The existing collective awareness of stigma and discrimination offers specific opportunities for generating systemic change. Study limitations include the focus on one geographic area of the UK, although we reflect on how our findings could be generalised to other settings. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation.

Business leaders' perceptions of how workplace charters can reduce health inequalities for employees in West Yorkshire, England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Workplace interventions to increase the number of good quality jobs can help reduce widening health inequalities in England and are an important area for public health research. Over the past decade, workplace charters led by local and regional government authorities have become increasingly popular. Charters typically include commitments on workplace practices-such as job security, pay, wellbeing, and employee voice-and an assessment and award process. Still, there is limited knowledge on how this intervention works. We aimed to understand the views of business leaders on how workplace charters can reduce health inequalities for employees. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 12 business leaders in West Yorkshire were purposively recruited (seven [58%] female, and five [42%] male) through the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, covering different business sizes and sectors. Business leaders were recruited, as key stakeholders who decide whether to engage with charters. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between Aug 3, and Sept 7, 2022. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify perceived charter mechanisms to reduce health inequalities, alongside emergent barriers to charter implementation. Ethics approval was granted by the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee. Participants gave written informed consent. FINDINGS: Business leaders perceived multiple charter mechanisms to reduce health inequalities: the charter to benchmark workplace practices, facilitate a business community, act as a credible badge for fair employers, and open a dialogue with partners. Three key emergent barriers to charter implementation were also identified, including different perceptions of fair work among business leaders, concern about significant charter demands for smaller businesses, and perceived external constraints from the political, social, and economic environment. INTERPRETATION: Business leaders' views affirmed that workplace charters are collectively perceived as a potential tool to address differential workplace practices and reduce health inequalities. However, due to substantial barriers identified, this study suggested that workplace charters could also exclude particular organisations and generate health inequalities. Charter providers must reconcile the tension between the collective aspiration, and practical reality of workplace charters. If reconciled, workplace charters could potentially be a timely and meaningful intervention to help reduce health inequalities in England. FUNDING: None.

Characteristics and consequences of participatory research approaches in long-term care facilities for older adults: a meta-ethnography of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Participatory research approaches can potentially empower older adults and improve their quality of life and care. These include research designs, methods, and conceptual frameworks in collaboration with people directly involved and invested in the research and research outcomes. However, participatory research approaches have rarely been explored in long-term care facilities for older adults, such as nursing homes or residential care facilities. We aimed to provide increased understanding and recommendations about how participatory research approaches can be conceptualised and used in long-term care facilities for older adults. METHODS: Inspired by Noblit and Hare (1988) and the seven phases of the eMERGe guidelines (2019), we performed a meta-ethnography (synthesis of qualitative research). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of science in July 2021 and June 2022 for studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and June 27, 2022 (see appendix for search terms). We included peer-reviewed qualitative publications on participatory research approaches with older adults or staff in long-term care facilities, written in English. To promote rigour, a protocol was used with two authors independently screening the articles, reaching consensus through critical discussions with a third author, and using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. We extracted data regarding types of participatory research approaches and themes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021275187. FINDINGS: Ten of 1445 articles screened were included in the analysis. Using seven types of participatory research approaches, the included studies investigated experiences of approximately 153 residents and 99 staff from seven countries (Australia, Belgium, England, Guyana, Ireland, Sweden, and the Netherlands). We identified five themes, expressed as a conceptual model with recommendations: (1) participatory backdrop; (2) collaborative places; (3) seeking common ground and solidarity; (4) temporal considerations; and (5) empowerment, growth, and cultural change. We recommend researchers allow flexible time for the slow-paced progression and potentially unintended consequences of this emergent approach. INTERPRETATION: This meta-ethnography provides an international and systematic synthesis of a diverse group of small-scale qualitative studies, which are, however, limited by insufficient reporting of participants' age, gender, or ethnicity. FUNDING: The Strategic Research Area in Health Care Science (SFO-V) at Karolinska Institutet and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE).

Improving the quality of written communication at patient discharge: triangulation of qualitative analyses and intervention co-design.

BACKGROUND: Poor handovers between hospital and primary care threaten safe discharges, with elderly and frail patients most at risk of harm. Using Behavioural Science we explored influences and identified relevant behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to improve written handovers and safety during discharge. METHODS: We conducted two qualitative studies: (1) ethnographic observations (>80 h) collected by five researchers in five purposively sampled clinical areas of a London teaching hospital, investigating routine work and interactions of hospital staff involved in discharges; and (2) 12 semi-structured interviews with hospital staff involved in discharge exploring influences on preparations of written handovers. Written consent was sought from clinical leads for ethnographic observations and from interview participants. Ethnographic fieldnotes and interview transcripts were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive approaches, respectively. Study findings were triangulated to identify key influences, mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We identified appropriate BCTs to address observed influences within each TDF domain using the Theory and Techniques Tool. Health-care workers (n=15), patients (n=2) and carers (n=2) selected and designed an intervention to improve written handovers in two workshops. Hospital workshop participants were involved with preparing written discharge handovers. Public participants had either recently been discharged from hospital or cared for someone recently discharged, including patients from groups especially vulnerable during discharge. FINDINGS: Triangulation of study findings generated 11 key influences on preparations of written handovers within five TDF domains: knowledge (eg, lack of awareness of guidelines), skills (staff experience), social or professional role and identity (effective communication), environmental context and resources (working patterns), and social influences (lack of feedback). 14 BCTs were identified to address these influences, including behavioural rehearsal or practice, instruction on how to perform a behaviour, and social support (practical). Workshop participants selected and designed a multifaceted educational intervention to improve written handovers. INTERPRETATION: The quality of handover documentation prepared by hospital staff for primary care teams is affected by influences from multiple domains, requiring a multifaceted approach to improve handovers. Although only based on findings from one hospital, the designed intervention should be tested in clinical settings with key stakeholders, including primary care staff, to evaluate impact on quality of written handovers and patient safety. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre.

Reflecting on parental insights into healthy lifestyles: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Children living in the most deprived regions are more than twice as likely as their affluent peers to be obese. One way we can explain the social gradient of health (determined by relative position on the scale of social disadvantage or advantage) is by identifying the barriers and drivers to health that different groups of people experience. This study explored the understanding and perceptions of (and barriers and drivers to) a healthy lifestyle to investigate how commissioned services can better support residents to enable behaviour change in an area of high social deprivation. This community engagement activity was also conducted to inform commissioning decisions in children's public health services. METHODS: We used a qualitative study design with a semi-structured interview schedule. Four focus groups (5-8 participants, n=26) were conducted in an area of high deprivation in northwest England. Parents or carers were invited to attend anonymously by the Public Health Community Engagement Officer (in June 2022). The inclusion criteria were previous attendance on a weight management programme. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Engagement activities do not require ethics approval. All participants provided written informed consent to take part. No further information was collected about personal characteristics. FINDINGS: The study participants demonstrated an awareness and understanding of factors affecting child and family health and health behaviours: healthy eating, exercise, mental health and emotional wellbeing, family values and attitudes towards a healthy lifestyle, cooking and budgeting, wider social connections, access to open spaces, availability of local activities, costs (including hidden costs), and structural barriers. INTERPRETATION: Using the finding that participants recognise barriers and drivers to behaviour change beyond knowledge and skills, we reflect on why there was no take up for a commissioned intervention that aimed to address childhood obesity in the Lancashire area. These reflections inform arguments for an alternative model of service commission that relies less on established randomised trial evidence base and more on participatory codesign and a place-based approach (working with populations' existing knowledge and skills) and is particularly sensitive to people's own perception of the specific drivers and barriers they experience to behaviour change. Limitations include sampling from an area with low diversity and selection of participants who have previously agreed to uptake a weight management intervention. FUNDING: None.

Parental and health visitor perceptions on growth screening in early childhood: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Growth screening in early childhood can help identify children with a range of medical and psychosocial vulnerabilities. In the UK, childhood growth and development up to age 5 years are assessed through the Healthy Child Programme, delivered by health visitors. However, formal criteria to trigger referrals for onward investigation are unclear. There is a lack of qualitative data on the acceptability and feasibility of formal growth screening programmes. This study aimed to build understanding of the perceptions and motivations of caregivers and health visitors in relation to child growth and growth screening. METHODS: This longitudinal observational study was part of a larger study piloting an automated growth screening algorithm in Tower Hamlets, London. We conducted three separate qualitative focus group interviews with health visitors (n=10), English-speaking parents (n=6), and Sylheti-speaking parents (n=5). Participants were purposively sampled, and written informed consent was obtained. A bilingual researcher facilitated each group, using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis and assessed for intercoder reliability. The interview guide was translated into Sylheti, and data from the Sylheti group were translated into English by the same bilingual researcher. FINDINGS: Findings suggest that parents desire holistic care in which health visitors are empowered to refer to other health professionals and council services. Parents also want easier access to health visitors, frequent visits with the same health-care provider, and advice on raising their children. Health visitors were seen as well positioned to play an essential role in educating parents on health and developmental milestones and in helping them identify when their child might need additional support. Both parents and health visitors stressed that resources need to be in place not only to assess children but also to provide access to services when problems are identified. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that implementing growth screening through health visitors is feasible and acceptable, provided health visitors are given the resources and capabilities to refer children to appropriate services. Interpretation is limited by the purposive nature of the sampling and possible response bias. FUNDING: Barts Charity.

Using a participatory approach to encourage uptake of breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening for Scottish Muslim women: a pilot qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Muslim women use cancer screening less often than the general female population, which puts them at risk of delayed detection. We used an asset-based approach to co-design a faith-based intervention to increase uptake of breast, colorectal, and cervical screening in Scottish Muslim women. METHODS: In this pilot qualitative study, we recruited Muslim women (n=28) of Asian and Arab ethnicity, aged 25-74 years, through snowball sampling from community organisations in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Ten of these women participated in four online workshops in February, 2021, with the aim to codesign the intervention, underpinned by the socio-ecological model and the behaviour change wheel. The final intervention included health education delivered by doctors, testimonials by Muslim women sharing experiences of cancer or screening, and the perspective on cancer screening from a female religious scholar. The intervention was delivered to two groups of eight and ten Muslim women respectively, in March 2021. A week later, the 18 women participated in two focus groups to qualitatively evaluate the intervention. Analyses were conducted thematically. FINDINGS: Themes included barriers to screening, acceptability of content and delivery, attitudinal change, and intervention improvement. Participants believed that lack of awareness was an important barrier to screening. They found the intervention informative. They particularly liked the combination of multiple components, including spirituality, culture, and health education. They valued the faith-based element and highlighted how Islam could facilitate overcoming cultural barriers including social stigma, embarrassment, and modesty, although this could vary with different levels of religiosity. Participants also emphasised that faith-based approaches in isolation would not be enough. They appreciated input of trusted sources such as doctors and religious scholars and were especially drawn to personal narratives. Participants expressed preference for face-to-face delivery and advised using translators to overcome language barriers. INTERPRETATION: Barriers to screening are complex. Using faith as an asset, integrated with the socio-ecological model and behaviour change wheel, resulted in a holistic intervention tackling multiple barriers, which appealed to participants. Collaborating with communities and faith leaders can help to develop culturally sensitive interventions that harness positive aspects of faith for better health outcomes. Intervention effectiveness needs more robust investigation, which we are undertaking in a feasibility study with 200 Muslim women in northeast England and Scotland. FUNDING: Scottish Inequalities Fund, the Scottish Government.

International evidence on lived experiences of trauma during homelessness and effects on mental health including substance use: a co-produced qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is an experience (physical or emotional) that is life-threatening, harmful, or out of the ordinary and has lasting effects on mental health and wellbeing. Much of the information about trauma within homeless populations focuses on events in childhood. Using coproduction principles, we aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence exploring the impact of trauma during adulthood homelessness on mental health, including substance use. METHODS: In this qualitative systematic review, we searched ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Proquest theses and dissertations, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published from inception until Sept 6, 2022, alongside grey literature from relevant websites. Search terms were developed based on the PICO framework. No language, date, or geographical limits were applied. Any qualitative research reporting experiences of trauma and its impact on mental health during homelessness in adults was eligible. We extracted relevant data (eg, methodology, sample characteristics, homelessness, and findings). People with lived experience of homelessness were provided with bespoke training by the lead researcher. They contributed to refining the review aims, screening, coding, and theme development. Quality was assessed using the CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist. FINDINGS: We included 26 qualitative papers, including 876 adults experiencing homelessness between ages 18 and 70 years (448 [51%] women and 428 [49%] men). All papers focused on urban settings. Eight papers were from the USA, five from Canada, four from the UK and Australia, three from Brazil, and one from Ethiopia and Iran. A framework synthesis of these 26 papers identified three preliminary themes. People experiencing homelessness make sense of trauma in three ways: internalised understanding, relationality to others, and with a survival lens. Coping strategies for managing feelings of fear, anxiety, and depression included substance use, self-rationalisation, and strategies to feel safe. Finally, when people experienced repeated trauma, they became either dissociated, and accepted their situation, or resilient, wishing to change their circumstances. INTERPRETATION: Further evidence is needed in rural or coastal regions, where people experiencing homelessness may face greater isolation. Trauma rarely takes place in isolation, and often previous experiences of trauma shape how people experiencing homelessness make sense of trauma and cope with it. Support to address coping with the effects of trauma should focus on ensuring people do not become desensitised and prevent deterioration of mental health and substance use. The strength of this review is its coproduction with people with lived experience. Single person data extraction with secondary checks was a limitation. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research as part of the Three NIHR Research Schools Mental Health Programme.

Potential impact of health communications to raise awareness of the relative risk of age and cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Research UK Cancer Awareness Measure Survey (2022) found older age as a risk factor for cancer to be low (around 2-4% across UK nations). However, 89 in 100 cancers are in those aged 50 years and older, and the majority of health-communications are targeted to these higher risk groups. This research aimed to understand the potential impact on health behaviours of communicating messages on relative increased risk of cancer with older age on participant's capability, motivation, and opportunity (COM-B model) in relation to positive early diagnosis health behaviours (body vigilance, intention to take part in cancer screening, preventative measures). METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted 60 min semi-structured paired-depth interviews of people aged 25-74 years from across the UK (20 pairs; n=40; age: mean 58·5 years, range 25-74; 19 [47%] men and 21 [53%] women; 27 [67%] White and 13 [33%] from Black or Asian minority ethnic groups). Participants were recruited via a recruitment agency and provided with an incentive of £60 for their time. To assess potential longer-term impact, participants filled a survey 2 weeks later on their views on the messages tested, and on self-reported actions taken as a result of the messages tested. The three different messages tested were rotated. Data were analysed using rapid thematic techniques, two moderators reviewed the data, and a framework analysis style assessed themes against capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B model). FINDINGS: Message 2 was the most preferred, as it was clear and easy to understand. Results suggested that including this messaging in health campaigns could encourage some positive early diagnosis heath behaviours. The post survey identified self-reported behaviour changes in nine (23%) of the 40 participants and sustained intentions in 29 (73%). Results overlayed with COM-B, identified messaging could support behaviour change by increasing awareness (psychological capability), providing a social cue (social opportunity), and encouraging emotions related to not wanting to get cancer or that they should be doing specific behaviours (reflective motivation). INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest communicating this message might have a positive effect on help-seeking behaviours in older adults (age ≥50 years). However, considerations include ensuring that the message is clear and understandable and that it doesn't induce fear. Although this study design allowed for more in-depth exploration, results are limited due to the small sample size. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.