scholarly journals Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-84
Author(s):  
Rob Anderson ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Alison Eastwood ◽  
Mark Rodgers ◽  
Liz Shaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Review Team ◽  
The University

Background For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy. Objective This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020. Data sources Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement. Methods We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn. Findings Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics. Limitations As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public. Conclusions We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use. Funding This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692199327
Author(s):  
Kate Flemming ◽  
Jane Noyes
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Method Paper ◽  
Increasing Demand

Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) have increased in prominence and profile over the last decade as a discrete set of methodologies to undertake systematic reviews of primary qualitative research in health and social care and in education. The findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis can enable a richer interpretation of a particular phenomenon, set of circumstances, or experiences than single primary qualitative research studies can achieve. Qualitative evidence synthesis methods were developed in response to an increasing demand from health and social professionals, policy makers, guideline developers and educationalists for review evidence that goes beyond “what works” afforded by systematic reviews of effectiveness. The increasing interest in the synthesis of qualitative research has led to methodological developments documented across a plethora of texts and journal articles. This “State of the Method” paper aims to bring together these methodological developments in one place, contextualizing advances in methods with exemplars to support readers in making choices in approach to a synthesis and aid understanding. The paper clarifies what a “qualitative evidence synthesis” is and explores its role, purpose and development. It details the kind of questions a QES can explore, the processes associated with a QES, including the methods for synthesis. The rational and methods for integrating a QES with systematic reviews of effectiveness are also detailed. Finally approaches reporting and recognition of what a “good” or rigorous QES look like are provided.

scholarly journals The impacts of GP federations in England on practices and on health and social care interfaces: four case studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1-118
Author(s):  
Ruth McDonald ◽  
Lisa Riste ◽  
Simon Bailey ◽  
Fay Bradley ◽  
Jonathan Hammond ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Central Authority ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Future Work

Background General practices have begun working collaboratively in general practitioner federations, which vary in scope, geographical reach and organisational form. Objectives The aim was to assess how federating affects practice processes, workforce, innovations in practices and the interface with health and social care stakeholders. Design This was a structured cross-sectional comparison of four case studies, using observation of meetings, interviews and analysis of documents. We combined inductive analysis with literature on ‘meta-organisations’ and networks to provide a theoretically informed analysis. Results All federations were ‘bottom-up’ voluntary membership organisations but with formal central authority structures. Practice processes were affected substantially in only one site. In this site, practices accepted the rules imposed by federation arrangements in a context of voluntary participation. Federating helped ease workforce pressures in two sites. Progress regarding innovations in practice and working with health and social care stakeholders was slower than federations anticipated. The approach of each federation central authority in terms of the extent to which it (1) sought to exercise control over member practices and (2) was engaged in ‘system proactivity’ (i.e. the degree of proactivity in working across a broader spatial and temporal context) was important in explaining variations in progress towards stated aims. We developed a typology to reflect the different approaches and found that an approach consisting of high levels of both top-down control and system proactivity was effective. One site adopted this ‘authoritative’ approach. In another site, rather than creating expectations of practices, the focus was on supporting them by attempting to solve the immediate problems they faced. This ‘indulgent’ approach was more effective than the approach used in the other two sites. These had a more distant ‘neglectful’ relationship with practices, characterised by low levels of both control over members and system proactivity. Other key factors explaining progress (or lack thereof) were competition between federations (if any), relationship with the Clinical Commissioning Group, money, history, leadership and management issues, size and geography; these interacted in a dynamic way. In the context of a tight deadline and fixed targets, federations were able to respond to the requirements to provide additional services as part of NHS Improving Access to General Practice policy in a way that would not have been possible in the absence of federations. However, this added to pressures faced by busy clinicians and managers. Limitations The focus was on only four sites; therefore, any federations that were more active than those federations in these four sites will have been excluded. In addition, although patients were interviewed, because most were unaware of federations, they generally had little to say on the subject. Conclusions General practices working collaboratively can produce benefits, but this takes time and effort. The approach of the federation central authority (authoritative, indulgent or neglectful) was hugely influential in affecting processes and outcomes. However, progress was generally slower than anticipated, and negligible in one case. Future work Future work would benefit from multimethod designs, which provide in-depth, longitudinal, qualitative and quantitative methods, to shed light on processes and impacts. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

UK-wide health policy under the Coalition

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Social Care ◽  
The Other ◽  
Executive Orders ◽  
Health Reforms ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Health And Social Care

A volume on health reforms under the Coalition must necessarily expand its focus beyond Westminster to consider the larger UK policy context. Legislation enacted in 1998 established devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with power to make law or issue executive orders in certain specified areas, including health services. This meant that an English NHS overseen by the Westminster Parliament now existed alongside separate NHS systems accountable to devolved governments in the other UK countries. Thus, the major Coalition health reforms heralded by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 applied in the main to England only. However, devolved administrations needed to formulate appropriate policy responses that either maintained differences or moved closer to the English policies. This chapter describes the divergent approaches between the four UK NHS systems, but also sheds light on the nature of coalition policy making.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals in the emergency department: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e023464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Rosie Quinn ◽  
Breda Naddy ◽  
Andrew O’Regan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Early Assessment ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionFinding cost-effective strategies to improve patient care in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing imperative given growing numbers of ED attendees. Encouraging evidence indicates that interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals (HSCPs) enhance patient care across a variety of healthcare settings. However, to date no systematic reviews of the effectiveness of early assessment and/or interventions carried by such teams in the ED exist. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of early assessment and/or intervention carried out by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care, and to define the content of the assessment and/or intervention offered by HSCPs.Methods and analysisUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standardised guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before–after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that report the impact of early assessment and/or intervention provided to adults aged 18+ by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED. Searches will be carried in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE from inception to March 2018. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant studies. Following a two-step screening process, two independent reviewers will extract data on the type of population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The findings will be synthesised in a narrative summary, and a meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be sought since it is not required for systematic reviews. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42018091794.

scholarly journals Exploring, measuring and enhancing the coproduction of health and well-being at the national, regional and local levels through comparative case studies in Sweden and England: the ‘Samskapa’ research programme protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Kjellström ◽  
Kristina Areskoug-Josefsson ◽  
Boel Andersson Gäre ◽  
Ann-Christine Andersson ◽  
Marlene Ockander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Explanatory Models ◽  
Longitudinal Case Study ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Health And Well Being

IntroductionCocreation, coproduction and codesign are advocated as effective ways of involving citizens in the design, management, provision and evaluation of health and social care services. Although numerous case studies describe the nature and level of coproduction in individual projects, there remain three significant gaps in the evidence base: (1) measures of coproduction processes and their outcomes, (2) mechanisms that enable inclusivity and reciprocity and (3) management systems and styles. By focusing on these issues, we aim to explore, enhance and measure the value of coproduction for improving the health and well-being of citizens.Methods and analysisNine ongoing coproduction projects form the core of an interactive research programme (‘Samskapa’) during a 6-year period (2019–2024). Six of these will take place in Sweden and three will be undertaken in England to enable knowledge exchange and cross-cultural comparison. The programme has a longitudinal case study design using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Cross-case analysis and a sensemaking process will generate relevant lessons both for those participating in the projects and researchers. Based on the findings, we will develop explanatory models and other outputs to increase the sustained value (and values) of future coproduction initiatives in these sectors.Ethics and disseminationAll necessary ethical approvals will be obtained from the regional Ethical Board in Sweden and from relevant authorities in England. All data and personal data will be handled in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations. Given the interactive nature of the research programme, knowledge dissemination to participants and stakeholders in the nine projects will be ongoing throughout the 6 years. External workshops—facilitated in collaboration with participating case studies and citizens—both during and at the end of the programme will provide an additional dissemination mechanism and involve health and social care practitioners, policymakers and third-sector organisations.

scholarly journals CogTale: An online platform for the evaluation, synthesis and dissemination of evidence from cognitive interventions studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Sabates ◽  
Sylvie Belleville ◽  
Mary Castellani ◽  
Tzvi Dwolatsky ◽  
Benjamin M. Hampstead ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Cognitive Intervention ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in health-related decision making, and are considered the gold standard in research synthesis methods. However, with new trials being regularly published and with the development of increasingly rigorous standards of data synthesis, systematic reviews often require much expertise and long periods of time to be completed. Automation of some of the steps of evidence synthesis productions is a promising improvement in the field, capable of reducing the time and costs associated with the process. This article describes the development and main characteristics of a novel online repository of cognitive intervention studies entitled Cognitive Treatments Article Library and Evaluation (CogTale). The platform is currently in a Beta Release phase, as it is still under development. However, it already contains over 70 studies, and the CogTale team is continuously coding and uploading new studies into the repository. Key features include advanced search options, the capability to generate meta-analyses, and an up-to-date display of relevant published studies.

scholarly journals Exploring the role of the Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) in clinical decision-making: a realist evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scott ◽  
Elisavet Andrikopoulou ◽  
Haythem Nakkas ◽  
Paul Roderick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Health Information Exchange ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

Background: The overall evidence for the impact of electronic information systems on cost, quality and safety of healthcare remains contested. Whilst it seems intuitively obvious that having more data about a patient will improve care, the mechanisms by which information availability is translated into better decision-making are not well understood. Furthermore, there is the risk of data overload creating a negative outcome. There are situations where a key information summary can be more useful than a rich record. The Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) is a shared electronic health record for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that combines key information from hospital, general practice, community care and social services. Its purpose is to provide clinical and care professionals with complete, accurate and up-to-date information when caring for patients. CHIE is used by GP out-of-hours services, acute hospital doctors, ambulance service, GPs and others in caring for patients. Research questions: The fundamental question was How does awareness of CHIE or usage of CHIE affect clinical decision-making? The secondary questions were What are the latent benefits of CHIE in frontline NHS operations? and What is the potential of CHIE to have an impact on major NHS cost pressures? The NHS funders decided to focus on acute medical inpatient admissions as the initial scope, given the high costs associated with hospital stays and the patient complexities (and therefore information requirements) often associated with unscheduled admissions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to explore their experience about the utility of CHIE in their clinical scenario, whether and how it has affected their decision-making practices and the barriers and facilitators for their use of CHIE. The Framework Method was used for qualitative analysis, supported by the software tool Atlas.ti. Results: 21 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three main functions were identified as useful: extensive medication prescribing history, information sharing between primary, secondary and social care and access to laboratory test results. We inferred two positive cognitive mechanisms: knowledge confidence and collaboration assurance, and three negative ones: consent anxiety, search anxiety and data mistrust. Conclusions: CHIE gives clinicians the bigger picture to understand the patient's health and social care history and circumstances so as to make confident and informed decisions. CHIE is very beneficial for medicines reconciliation on admission, especially for patients that are unable to speak or act for themselves or who cannot remember their precise medication or allergies. We found no clear evidence that CHIE has a significant impact on admission or discharge decisions. We propose the use of recommender systems to help clinicians navigate such large volumes of patient data, which will only grow as additional data is collected.

Engagement

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Burns ◽  
Mike Firn
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Missed Appointments ◽  
Related Activity ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Service Perspective

Engagement is defined and a classification of engagement-related activity presented, underlining the centrality of individual and team relationships in delivering health and social care to individuals. Case studies provide practical illustration of differing approaches in the hierarchy of engaging individuals in treatment, from mutually constructive strategies to more restrictive tactics for people who avoid services. Throughout, the patient and service perspective is compared, for example, when does conscientious follow-up become perceived as harassment? Critique and evidence from research and patient testimony is provided. The value of engagement measures are discussed, including patient reported attachment and proxy measures of missed appointments and dropout.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document