Search results
Found 19977 matches for
We lead multidisciplinary applied research and training to rethink the way health care is delivered in general practice and across the community.
Commentary: Without Values, Complexity is Reduced to Mathematics
This commentary on Sturmberg and Mercuri's paper ‘Every Problem is Embedded in a Greater Whole’ [1] argues that those authors have approached complexity from a largely mathematical perspective, drawing on the work of Sumpter. Whilst such an approach allows us to challenge the simple linear causality assumed in randomised controlled trials, it is itself limited. Mathematical complexity can explain nonlinearity and network effects but it cannot explain human values. It overlooks, for example, how science itself is historically and culturally shaped and how values-driven misunderstandings and conflicts are inevitable when people with different world views come together to try to solve a problem. This paper argues that the mathematical version of complexity thinking is necessary but not sufficient in medical research, and that we need to enhance such thinking further with attention to human values.
Technostress, technosuffering, and relational strain: a multi-method qualitative study of how remote and digital work affects staff in UK general practice
Background The introduction of remote and digital forms of working in UK general practice has driven the development of new routines and working styles. Aim To explore and theorise how new forms of work have affected general practice staff. Design and setting Multi-sited, qualitative case study in UK general practice. Method Using longitudinal ethnography by researchers in residence, we followed 12 practices for 28 months (September 2021 to December 2023). This core dataset was supplemented by workshops and stakeholder interviews. Data analysis applied theories from the sociology of work, organisation studies, and internet studies. Results Staff made significant efforts to adapt to and embed digital services into their work. When technologies work well they can offer improved convenience, efficiency, more comprehensive patient care, and workplace fulfilment for staff. However, for many clinical and administrative staff, compromises and frictions embedded in digitalised workplace routines and processes could also lead to job dissatisfaction, worsened wellbeing, and misalignments with professional values and identities. We found that this workplace suffering caused relational strain between team members and had an impact on team cohesiveness and coordination. Conclusion The digitalisation of working routines in UK general practice poses a unique challenge to the workforce, risking technostress, workplace suffering, and increased relational strain within and between teams. To embed the benefits of digitalisation, we must first improve practice teams’ readiness for change, which includes strengthening practices’ relational structures that provide support during periods of adaptation. Practices must be empowered to determine a locally appropriate configuration of digital tools and given the resources and time to adapt working routines.
What caused the Covid-19 pandemic?
This chapter considers the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of a complex, emergent and global phenomenon, the numerous causes of which must be examined at multiple levels through different ontological and epistemological lenses. After providing examples of biomedical explanations which depict the pandemic somewhat reductively in terms of biomedical and molecular causes, we introduce the notion of performative causality-the pandemic begins when it is "declared". We explore how a particular version of the pandemic was brought into being through certain social actions, including "front-stage" presentations of particular versions of science and more informal, "back-stage" efforts to enrol and mobilize others to back a particular course of action. We describe how scientific enquiry during the pandemic was culturally and politically shaped using the example of the flawed "droplet narrative" explanation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Using Bourdieu's notions of habitus, field, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, we show how aerosol scientists who were less powerfully positioned were ignored and their explanations rejected by policymakers at the World Health Organization and (consequently) by national public health bodies. Finally, we consider how the awkward and contested ways in which the pandemic may end.
How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Seventh Edition
Learn to assess published research in this best-selling introduction to evidence-based healthcare Evidence-based practices have revolutionized medical care. Clinical and scientific papers have something to offer practitioners at every level of the profession, from students to established clinicians in medicine, nursing and allied professions. Novices are often intimidated by the idea of reading and appraising the research literature. How to Read a Paper demystifies this process with a thorough, engaging introduction to how clinical research papers are constructed and how to evaluate them. Now fully updated to incorporate new areas of research, readers of the seventh edition of How to Read a Paper will also find: A careful balance between the principles of evidence-based healthcare and clinical practice New chapters covering consensus methods, mechanistic evidence, big data and artificial intelligence Detailed coverage of subjects like assessing methodological quality, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, qualitative research, and more. How to Read a Paper is ideal for all healthcare students and professionals seeking an accessible introduction to evidence-based healthcare – particularly those sitting undergraduate and postgraduate exams and preparing for interviews.
Pain experiences during intrauterine device procedures: a thematic analysis of tweets
Introduction In June 2021, high-profile testimonials in the media about pain during intrauterine device (IUD) procedures in the UK prompted significant discussion across platforms including Twitter (subsequently renamed X). We examined a sample of Twitter postings (tweets) to gain insight into public perspectives and experiences. Methods We harvested tweets posted or retweeted on 21–22 June 2021 which contained the search terms coil, intrauterine system, IUD or intrauterine. We analysed the dataset thematically and selected illustrative tweets with the authors’ consent for publication. Results Following deduplication and screening, we included 1431 tweets in our analysis. We identified testimonials with descriptions of varied pain experiences. Twitter users reported that clinicians had not warned them that pain could be severe or explained the options for pain relief. Some raised concerns about pain being minimised or dismissed and linked this to the management of women’s pain in medicine more broadly. Twitter users described connecting to an online community with shared experiences as validating and used this as a springboard for collective action. Conclusions While we acknowledge the limitations of our sample, this study highlights important perspectives and accounts relating to pain during IUD procedures. Our findings attest to the need for strategies to improve the patient experience for those opting for IUD as a clinical priority. Further research should explore IUD users' experiences, expectations and wishes around pain management.
Evaluating video and hybrid group consultations in general practice: mixed-methods, participatory study protocol (TOGETHER 2)
Background: General practice is facing an unprecedented challenge in managing the consequences of the pandemic. In the midst of a policy drive to balance remote and in-person service provision, substantial workload pressures remain, together with increasing prevalence of long-term conditions, and declining staff numbers and morale. To address these challenges, some practices in the UK have been delivering video and hybrid group consultations (VHGCs). Despite positive initial findings and enthusiasm, there are still gaps in our understanding of the influence VHGCs have on patient experience, healthcare utilisation, quality, safety, equity and affordability. Objectives To generate an in-depth understanding of VHGCs for chronic conditions in general practice, surface assumptions and sociotechnical dynamics, inform practice and extend theorisation. Methods Mixed-methods, multi-site research study using co-design and participatory methods, from qualitative, quantitative and cost-related perspectives. WP1 includes a national, cross-sectional survey on VHGC provision across the UK. In WP2 we will engage patients and general practice staff in co-design workshops to develop VHGC models with emphasis on digital inclusion and equity. In WP3 we will carry out a mixed-methods process evaluation in up to 10 GP practices across England (5 sites already running VHGCs and 5 comparison sites). Qualitative methods will include interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation to examine the experiences of patients, carers, clinical and non-clinical NHS staff, commissioners and policy-makers. Quantitative methods will examine the impact of VHGCs on healthcare utilisation in primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction, engagement and activation. We will also assess value for money of group and individual care models from a health economics perspective. Conclusions We aim to develop transferable learning on sociotechnical change in healthcare delivery, using VHGCs as an exemplar of technology-supported innovation. Findings will also inform the design of a future study.
Working knowledge, uncertainty and ontological politics: An ethnography of UK long covid clinics
Long covid (persistent COVID-19) is a new disease with contested aetiology and variable prognosis. We report a 2-year ethnography of UK long covid clinics. Using a preformative lens, we show that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) built working knowledge based on shared practices, mutual trust, distributed cognition (e.g. emails, record entries), relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient, and harnessing uncertainty to open new discursive spaces. Most long covid MDTs performed the working knowledge of ‘rehabilitation’, a linked set of practices oriented to ensuring that the patient understood and strove to ‘correct’ maladaptive physiological responses (e.g. through breathing exercises) and pursued recovery goals, supported by physiotherapists, psychologists and generalist clinicians. Some MDTs with a higher proportion of doctors (e.g. cardiologists, neurologists, immunologists) enacted the working knowledge of ‘microscopic damage’, seeking to elucidate and rectify long covid’s underlying molecular and cellular pathology. They justified non-standard investigations and medication in selected patients by co-constructing an evidentiary narrative based on biological mechanisms. Working knowledge was ontologically concordant within MDTs but sometimes discordant between MDTs. Overt ontological conflict occurred mostly when patients attending ‘rehabilitation’ clinics invoked the working knowledge of microscopic damage that had been generated and circulated in online support communities.
I can't cope with multiple inputs': A qualitative study of the lived experience of brain fog' after COVID-19
Objective To explore the lived experience of brain fog'-the wide variety of neurocognitive symptoms that can follow COVID-19. Design and setting A UK-wide longitudinal qualitative study comprising online focus groups with email follow-up. Method 50 participants were recruited from a previous qualitative study of the lived experience of long COVID-19 (n=23) and online support groups for people with persistent neurocognitive symptoms following COVID-19 (n=27). In remotely held focus groups, participants were invited to describe their neurocognitive symptoms and comment on others' accounts. Individuals were followed up by email 4-6 months later. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded in NVIVO. They were analysed by an interdisciplinary team with expertise in general practice, clinical neuroscience, the sociology of chronic illness and service delivery, and checked by people with lived experience of brain fog. Results Of the 50 participants, 42 were female and 32 white British. Most had never been hospitalised for COVID-19. Qualitative analysis revealed the following themes: mixed views on the appropriateness of the term brain fog'; rich descriptions of the experience of neurocognitive symptoms (especially executive function, attention, memory and language), accounts of how the illness fluctuated-and progressed over time; the profound psychosocial impact of the condition on relationships, personal and professional identity; self-perceptions of guilt, shame and stigma; strategies used for self-management; challenges accessing and navigating the healthcare system; and participants' search for physical mechanisms to explain their symptoms. Conclusion These qualitative findings complement research into the epidemiology and mechanisms of neurocognitive symptoms after COVID-19. Services for such patients should include: an ongoing therapeutic relationship with a clinician who engages with their experience of neurocognitive symptoms in its personal, social and occupational context as well as specialist services that include provision for neurocognitive symptoms, are accessible, easily navigable, comprehensive and interdisciplinary.
Ethnographic closeness: methodological reflections on the interplay of engagement and detachment in immersive ethnographic research
With the reflexive turn in the social sciences, emotional engagement is an inevitable and crucial part of data-gathering and analysis. However, there is a glaring gap in methodological discussions to this end. Presenting ethnographic research into end of life with people living at home in England with heart failure, we argue for a methodological blend of engagement and detachment that shifts throughout the research process, and that sensory experience is a core part of engagement. We offer ethnographic examples which present and explore some alternatives to emotional engagement and objective detachment: (1) moving with participants to facilitate engagement during fieldwork through shared sensory experience; (2) detachment as a different way of relating when exiting the field and drawing participant relationships to a close; and (3) ethnographic closeness as the interplay of engagement and detachment in participant debriefing and data analysis. Based on well-established anthropological concepts, and taking both engagement and detachment as embodied and relational, we develop a notion of ethnographic closeness in which detachment is a necessary part. Our detailed methodological discussion thus offers theoretically grounded possibilities and alternatives for approaching and managing the core tension of ‘how close is too close?’ in ethnographic practice. Further contributions supporting researchers in navigating ethnographic research are needed.
Desperately Seeking Intersectionality in Digital Health Disparity Research: Narrative Review to Inform a Richer Theorization of Multiple Disadvantage
Background: Digital consultations between patients and clinicians increased markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions about equity. Objective: This study aimed to review the literature on how multiple disadvantage-specifically, older age, lower socioeconomic status, and limited English proficiency-has been conceptualized, theorized, and studied empirically in relation to digital consultations. We focused mainly on video consultations as they have wider disparities than telephone consultations and relevant data on e-consultations are sparse. Methods: Using keyword and snowball searching, we identified relevant papers published between 2012 and 2022 using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The first search was completed in July 2022. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed thematically and summarized, and their key findings were tabulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research criteria. Explanations for digital disparities were critically examined, and a search was undertaken in October 2022 to identify theoretical lenses on multiple disadvantage. Results: Of 663 articles from the initial search, 27 (4.1%) met our inclusion criteria. In total, 37% (10/27) were commentaries, and 63% (17/27) were peer-reviewed empirical studies (11/27, 41% quantitative; 5/27, 19% qualitative; 1/27, 4% mixed methods; 1/27, 4% systematic reviews; and 1/27, 4% narrative reviews). Empirical studies were mostly small, rapidly conducted, and briefly reported. Most studies (25/27, 93%) identified marked digital disparities but lacked a strong theoretical lens. Proposed solutions focused on identifying and removing barriers, but the authors generally overlooked the pervasive impact of multiple layers of disadvantage. The data set included no theoretically informed studies that examined how different dimensions of disadvantage combined to affect digital health disparities. In our subsequent search, we identified 3 theoretical approaches that might help account for these digital disparities. Fundamental cause theory by Link and Phelan addresses why the association between socioeconomic status and health is pervasive and persists over time. Digital capital theory by Ragnedda and Ruiu explains how people mobilize resources to participate in digitally mediated activities and services. Intersectionality theory by Crenshaw states that systems of oppression are inherently bound together, creating singular social experiences for people who bear the force of multiple adverse social structures. Conclusions: A limitation of our initial sample was the sparse and undertheorized nature of the primary literature. The lack of attention to how digital health disparities emerge and play out both within and across categories of disadvantage means that solutions proposed to date may be oversimplistic and insufficient. Theories of multiple disadvantage have bearing on digital health, and there may be others of relevance besides those discussed in this paper. We call for greater interdisciplinary dialogue between theoretical research on multiple disadvantage and empirical studies on digital health disparities.
Heart failure diagnosis in the general community – Who, how and when? A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)
A significant proportion of patients experience delays in the diagnosis of heart failure due to the non-specific signs and symptoms of the syndrome. Diagnostic tools such as measurement of natriuretic peptide concentrations are fundamentally important when screening for heart failure, yet are frequently under-utilized. This clinical consensus statement provides a diagnostic framework for general practitioners and non-cardiology community-based physicians to recognize, investigate and risk-stratify patients presenting in the community with possible heart failure.
The Role of Information Infrastructures in Scaling up Video Consultations During COVID-19: Mixed Methods Case Study Into Opportunity, Disruption, and Exposure
Background: Until COVID-19, implementation and uptake of video consultations in health care was slow. However, the pandemic created a "burning platform"for scaling up such services. As health care organizations look to expand and maintain the use of video in the "new normal,"it is important to understand infrastructural influences and changes that emerged during the pandemic and that may influence sustainability going forward. Objective: This study aims to draw lessons from 4 National Health Service (NHS) organizations on how information infrastructures shaped, and were shaped by, the rapid scale-up of video consultations during COVID-19. Methods: A mixed methods case study of 4 NHS trusts in England was conducted before and during the pandemic. Data comprised 90 interviews with 49 participants (eg, clinicians, managers, administrators, and IT support), ethnographic field notes, and video consultation activity data. We sought examples of infrastructural features and challenges related to the rapid scale-up of video. Analysis was guided by Gkeredakis et al's 3 perspectives on crisis and digital change: as opportunity (for accelerated innovation and removal of barriers to experimentation), disruption (to organizational practices, generating new dependencies and risks), and exposure (of vulnerabilities in both people and infrastructure). Results: Before COVID-19, there was a strong policy push for video consultations as a way of delivering health care efficiently. However, the spread of video was slow, and adopting clinicians described their use as ad hoc rather than business as usual. When the pandemic hit, video was rapidly scaled up. The most rapid increase in use was during the first month of the pandemic (March-April 2020), from an average of 8 video consultations per week to 171 per week at each site. Uptake continued to increase during the pandemic, averaging approximately 800 video consultations per week by March 2021. From an opportunity perspective, participants talked about changes to institutional elements of infrastructure, which had historically restricted the introduction and use of video. This was supported by an "organizing vision"for video, bringing legitimacy and support. Perspectives on disruption centered on changes to social, technical, and material work environments and the emergence of new patterns of action. Retaining positive elements of such change required a judicious balance between managerial (top-down) and emergent (bottom-up) approaches. Perspectives on exposure foregrounded social and technical impediments to video consulting. This highlighted the need to attend to the materiality and dependability of the installed base, as well as the social and cultural context of use. Conclusions: For sustained adoption at scale, health care organizations need to enable incremental systemic change and flexibility through agile governance and knowledge transfer pathways, support process multiplicity within virtual clinic workflows, attend to the materiality and dependability of the IT infrastructure within and beyond organizational boundaries, and maintain an overall narrative within which the continued use of video can be framed.
Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: Part 2 - Research priorities on conditions affecting the young person's hip
Introduction Primary cam morphology is highly prevalent in many athlete populations, causing debilitating hip osteoarthritis in some. Existing research is mired in confusion partly because stakeholders have not agreed on key primary cam morphology elements or a prioritised research agenda. We aimed to inform a more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based approach to research on primary cam morphology and its natural history by working towards agreement on a set of research priorities for conditions affecting the young person's hip. Methods An international expert panel - the Young Athlete's Hip Research (YAHiR) Collaborative - rated research priority statements through an online two-round Delphi exercise and met online to explore areas of tension and dissent. Panellists ranked the prioritised research statements according to the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) ranking strategy. Reporting of results followed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health). Results A diverse Delphi panel (n=65, Delphi rounds 1 and 2; three ENHR strategy surveys: n=49; n=44; n=42) from 18 countries representing six stakeholder groups, prioritised and ranked 18 of 38 research priority statements. The prioritised statements outlined seven research domains: (1) best practice physiotherapy, (2) rehabilitation progression and return to sport, (3) exercise intervention and load management, (4) primary cam morphology prognosis and aetiology, (5) femoroacetabular impingement syndrome prognosis and aetiology, (6) diagnostic criteria, and (7) screening. The panel recommended areas of tension and dissent for the research community to focus on immediately. Conclusion While informing more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based research, this consensus is a roadmap for researchers, policy-makers and funders to implement research dedicated to reducing the cost and burden of hip disease related to primary cam morphology.
Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: Part 1 - Definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes
Introduction Primary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures. Methods To collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel - the Young Athlete's Hip Research Collaborative - rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. Results A diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology - use morphology' and not terms with a negative connotation like lesion', abnormality' or deformity'; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research. Conclusion This consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history.
The reflexive imperative in the digital age: Using Archer’s ‘fractured reflexivity’ to theorise widening inequities in UK general practice
‘Reflexivity’, as used by Margaret Archer, means creative self-mastery that enables individuals to evaluate their social situation and act purposively within it. People with complex health and social needs may be less able to reflect on their predicament and act to address it. Reflexivity is imperative in complex and changing social situations. The substantial widening of health inequities since the introduction of remote and digital modalities in health care has been well-documented but inadequately theorised. In this article, we use Archer’s theory of fractured reflexivity to understand digital disparities in data from a 28-month longitudinal ethnographic study of 12 UK general practices and a sample of in-depth clinical cases from ‘Deep End’ practices serving highly deprived populations. Through four composite patient cases crafted to illustrate different dimensions of disadvantage, we show how adverse past experiences and structural inequities intersect with patients’ reflexive capacity to self-advocate and act strategically. In some cases, staff were able to use creative workarounds to compensate for patients’ fractured reflexivity, but such actions were limited by workforce capacity and staff awareness. Unless a more systematic safety net is introduced and resourced, people with complex needs are likely to remain multiply disadvantaged by remote and digital health care.
Adapt or die: how the pandemic made the shift from EBM to EBM+ more urgent
Evidence-based medicine (EBM's) traditional methods, especially randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, along with risk-of-bias tools and checklists, have contributed significantly to the science of COVID-19. But these methods and tools were designed primarily to answer simple, focused questions in a stable context where yesterday's research can be mapped more or less unproblematically onto today's clinical and policy questions. They have significant limitations when extended to complex questions about a novel pathogen causing chaos across multiple sectors in a fast-changing global context. Non-pharmaceutical interventions which combine material artefacts, human behaviour, organisational directives, occupational health and safety, and the built environment are a case in point: EBM's experimental, intervention-focused, checklist-driven, effect-size-oriented and deductive approach has sometimes confused rather than informed debate. While RCTs are important, exclusion of other study designs and evidence sources has been particularly problematic in a context where rapid decision making is needed in order to save lives and protect health. It is time to bring in a wider range of evidence and a more pluralist approach to defining what counts as € high-quality' evidence. We introduce some conceptual tools and quality frameworks from various fields involving what is known as mechanistic research, including complexity science, engineering and the social sciences. We propose that the tools and frameworks of mechanistic evidence, sometimes known as € EBM+' when combined with traditional EBM, might be used to develop and evaluate the interdisciplinary evidence base needed to take us out of this protracted pandemic. Further articles in this series will apply pluralistic methods to specific research questions.