Dataset Information

Understanding successful development of complex health and healthcare interventions and its drivers from the perspective of developers and wider stakeholders: an international qualitative interview study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Identify how individuals involved in developing complex health and healthcare interventions (developers), and wider stakeholders in the endeavour, such as funders, define successful intervention development and what factors influence how interventions are developed.

Design

In-depth interviews with developers and wider stakeholders to explore their views and experiences of developing complex health and healthcare interventions.

Setting

Interviews conducted with individuals in the UK, Europe and North America.

Participants

Twenty-one individuals were interviewed: 15 developers and 6 wider stakeholders. Seventeen participants were UK based.

Results

Most participants defined successful intervention development as a process that resulted in effective interventions that were relevant, acceptable and could be implemented in real-world contexts. Accounts also indicated that participants aimed to develop interventions that end users wanted, and to undertake a development process that was methodologically rigorous and provided research evidence for journal publications and future grant applications. Participants' ambitions to develop interventions that had real-world impact drove them to consider the intervention's feasibility and long-term sustainability early in the development process. However, this process was also driven by other factors: the realities of resource-limited health contexts; prespecified research funder priorities; a reluctance to deviate from grant application protocols to incorporate evidence and knowledge acquired during the development process; limited funding to develop interventions and the need for future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to prove effectiveness. Participants expressed concern that these drivers discouraged long-term thinking and the development of innovative interventions, and prioritised evaluation over development and future implementation.

Conclusions

Tensions exist between developers' goal of developing interventions that improve health in the real world, current funding structures, the limited resources within healthcare contexts, and the dominance of the RCT for evaluation of these interventions. There is a need to review funding processes and expectations of gold standard evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Turner KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549621 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidance and frameworks exist to assist those developing health interventions but may offer limited discussion of 'design', the part of development concerned with generating ideas for and making decisions about an intervention's content, format and delivery. The aim of this paper is to describe and understand the views and experiences of developers and associated stakeholders in relation to how design occurs in health intervention development.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 people who had developed complex interventions to improve health and/or who were relevant stakeholders (e.g. funders and publishers of intervention development work), regarding their views, experiences and approaches to intervention design. Sampling was purposive in terms of maximising diversity. A thematic inductive analysis was conducted.ResultsApproaches to design varied substantially between intervention developers. This contrasted with consistency in other activities undertaken during development, such as literature review. Design also posed more challenges than other parts of development. We identified six 'modes' of design: informed; negotiated; structured; delegated; 'my baby'; and creative partnership. In understanding the differences between these different modes, and the challenges posed by intervention design, we identified three key themes: enabling creativity during the design process; working with different types of knowledge; and 'stabilising' (developing clear shared understandings of) the intervention development to enable design.ConclusionsDesign has received less attention than other activities undertaken when developing interventions to improve health. Developers take a variety of approaches to design and often find it challenging. Guidance for intervention development in health has tended to see design as proceeding in a predictable and controlled manner from acquired knowledge. Our study suggests that design rarely reflects this rational ideal. Future guidance on intervention development in healthcare should support developers to work effectively with different types of knowledge, to help design progress more smoothly and to maximise creativity.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Assisting patients in lifestyle change using collaborative e-health tools can be an efficient treatment for non-communicable diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive lung disease that are caused or aggravated by unhealthy living in the form of unhealthy diet, physical inactivity or tobacco smoking. In a prospective pilot study, we tested an online collaborative e-health tool in general practice. The aim of this study was to identify drivers of importance for long-term personal lifestyle changes from a patient perspective when using a collaborative e-health tool, including the support of peers and healthcare professionals. SETTING:General practice clinics in the Region of Southern Denmark. PARTICIPANTS:10 overweight patients who had previously successfully used a hybrid online collaborative e-health tool with both face-to-face and online consultations to lose weight. RESULTS:The main themes identified were facilitators, barriers and support from family and peers. Establishment of a trustworthy relationship with the healthcare professionals was of paramount importance. It was important for the patients to monitor the measurable outcomes with realistic goals and feedback from a trusted person. Often, significant life events were identified as catalysts for successful long-term lifestyle changes. Dominant barriers to change were perception of insurmountable obstacles, experience of lack of self-efficacy and excess eating of high-calorie food. Finally, experiencing of trustworthy person-to-person forums, need for acknowledgement from referent others and support from family and peers were important drivers for long-term lifestyle change. CONCLUSION:The most important driver in long-term weight loss was a strong relationship with a healthcare professional. Collaborative e-health tools can support the relationship and behavioural changes through monitoring and providing relevant feedback. The support from family and peers also matters, and long-term success depends on the ability to establish strong, positive support on a day-to-day basis.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, personalized medicine (PM) has become a highly regarded line of development in medicine. Yet, it is still a relatively new field. As a consequence, the discussion of its future developments, in particular of its ethical implications, in most cases can only be anticipative. Such anticipative discussions, however, pose several challenges. Nevertheless, they play a crucial role for shaping PM's further developments. Therefore, it is vital to understand how the ethical discourse on PM is conducted, i.e. on what - empirical and normative - assumptions ethical arguments are based regarding PM's current and future developments.MethodsTo gather this information, we conducted a qualitative interview study with stakeholders in the German health care system. Our purposive sample included 17 representatives of basic research, clinical research, health economics, regulatory authorities, reimbursement institutions, pharmaceutical industry, patient organizations, as well as clinicians and legal experts involved in PM developments or policy making. We used an interview guide with open-ended questions and analyzed transcriptions of the interviews by means of qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe respondents addressed a multitude of concerns in the context of research on as well as application of personalized preventive and therapeutic measures both on the individual and on the societal level. Interestingly, regarding future developments of PM the ethical evaluation seemed to follow the rule: the less likely its application, the more problematic a PM measure is assessed. The more likely its application, on the other hand, the less problematic it is evaluated.ConclusionsThe results of our study suggest re-focusing the ethical discourse on PM in Germany towards a constructive ethical monitoring which ensures to include only, nevertheless all of the actual and/or potential concerns that are ethically relevant in order to allow balancing them against the actual and potential ethically relevant benefits of PM measures. To render this possible, we propose a strategy for evaluating ethical concerns in the context of PM.

Project description:BackgroundDigital triage tools such as telephone advice and online symptom checkers are now commonplace in health systems internationally. Research has focused on consumers' adherence to advice, health outcomes, satisfaction, and the degree to which these services manage demand for general practice or emergency departments. Such studies have had mixed findings, leaving equivocal the role of these services in healthcare.ObjectiveWe examined stakeholders' perspectives on Healthdirect, Australia's national digital triage provider, focusing on its role in the health system, and barriers to operation, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsKey stakeholders took part in semi-structured interviews conducted online in the third quarter of 2021. Transcripts were coded and thematically analysed.ResultsParticipants (n = 41) were Healthdirect staff (n = 13), employees of Primary Health Networks (PHNs; n = 12), clinicians (n = 9), shareholder representatives (n = 4), consumer representatives (n = 2) and other policymakers (n = 1). Eight themes emerged from the analysis: (1) information and guidance in navigating the system, (2) efficiency through appropriate care, (3) value for consumers? (4) the difficulties in triage at a distance, (5) competition and the unfulfilled promise of integration, (6) challenges in promoting Healthdirect, (7) monitoring and evaluating digital triage services and (8) rapid change, challenge and opportunity from COVID-19.ConclusionStakeholders varied in their views of the purpose of Healthdirect's digital triage services. They identified challenges in lack of integration, competition, and the limited public profile of the services, issues largely reflective of the complexity of the policy and health system landscape. There was acknowledgement of the value of the services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and an expectation of them realising greater potential in the wake of the rapid uptake of telehealth.

Project description:ObjectivesWhile studies at the undergraduate level have begun to explore healthcare students' safety and dignity dilemmas, none have explored such dilemmas with multiple stakeholders at the postgraduate level. The current study therefore explores the patient and staff safety and dignity narratives of multiple stakeholders to better understand the healthcare workplace learning culture.DesignA qualitative interview study using narrative interviewing.SettingTwo sites in the UK ranked near the top and bottom for raising concerns according to the 2013 General Medical Council National Training Survey.ParticipantsUsing maximum variation sampling, 39 participants were recruited representing four different groups (10 public representatives, 10 medical trainees, 8 medical trainers and 11 nurses and allied health professionals) across the two sites.MethodsWe conducted 1 group and 35 individual semistructured interviews. Data collection was completed in 2015. Framework analysis was conducted to identify themes. Theme similarities and differences across the two sites and four groups were established.ResultsWe identified five themes in relation to our three research questions (RQs): (1) understandings of safety and dignity (RQ1); (2) experiences of safety and dignity dilemmas (RQ2); (3) resistance and/or complicity regarding dilemmas encountered (RQ2); (4) factors facilitating safety and/or dignity (RQ3); and (5) factors inhibiting safety and/or dignity (RQ3). The themes were remarkably similar across the two sites and four stakeholder groups.ConclusionsWhile some of our findings are similar to previous research with undergraduate healthcare students, our findings also differ, for example, illustrating higher levels of reported resistance in the postgraduate context. We provide educational implications to uphold safety and dignity at the level of the individual (eg, stakeholder education), interaction (eg, stakeholder communication and teamwork) and organisation (eg, institutional policy).

Project description:IntroductionChronic pain affects millions of individuals worldwide. Healthcare provider gender bias in the management of these individuals has societal and individual ramifications. Yet, a thorough and comprehensive literature summary on this topic is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to systematically: (1) identify and map the available scientific and grey literature as it relates to healthcare provider gender bias in the assessment, diagnosis and management of (chronic) musculoskeletal pain and (2) identify current gaps that necessitate further research.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with recent guidelines, and the results will be reported via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The following databases will be searched: PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (Ovid), Academic Search Complete (Ebscohost), Pre-Prints Database (National Library of Medicine) and Rehabilitation Reference Center from inception to August 2022. Additionally, relevant grey literature will be identified. All screening will be done by two independent reviewers during two stages: first title/abstract screening followed by full-text screening. Data will be extracted from the bibliometric, study characteristics, and pain science families of variables. Results will be descriptively mapped, and the frequency of concepts, population, characteristics and other details will be narratively reported. Additionally, results will be presented in tabular and graphical form.Ethics and disseminationAs this study will neither involve human subject participation nor utilisation of protected data, ethical approval is not required. This study's methodological approach follows current recommendations. Study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and international peer-review journal publication. In addition, infographics available in English, Spanish and German will be disseminated.Registration detailsThis project will be registered in Open Science Framework prior to data collection.

Project description:BackgroundTransgender individuals experience limited access to healthcare. This results not least from experiences of discrimination to which they are exposed in the health system. These contribute to transgender individuals having poorer health than cis individuals, i.e. individuals whose sex assigned at birth is in line with their gender identity. It is an ethical duty to take effective measures to minimize inequalities in medical care. At best, such measures should also be assessed as appropriate from the perspective of those affected in order to be accepted and thus effective. It is therefore important to know whether measures touch on the subjectively assumed reasons for experiences of discrimination. Hence, to be able to take appropriate measures, it is important to identify the reasons that transgender individuals see as causal for their experiences of discrimination in healthcare.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 German transgender individuals and asked them about their own experiences of discrimination in healthcare and their assumptions on the reasons for discrimination. We analyzed the responses using the method of structured qualitative content analysis.Results13 transgender individuals reported experiences of discrimination in healthcare. These emanated from different professional groups and took place in trans-specific as well as general medical settings. We were able to identify a total of 12 reasons that transgender individuals see as causal for their experiences of discrimination: (1) internalized trans-hostility and "protection" of cis individuals, (2) lack of knowledge/uncertainties regarding transition, (3) "protection" of a binary worldview, (4) binary worldview in medicine, (5) structural deficits, (6) asymmetric interactions with specialists, (7) current political debate, (8) view of transgender individuals as a "burden for society", (9) objectification, (10) homophobia, (11) misogyny/androcentrism and (12) discrimination as reaction to discrimination.ConclusionsGerman transgender individuals have a very differentiated picture regarding their subjective reasons for experiencing discrimination in healthcare. Overall, disrespect regarding gender identity and a confrontation with foreignness seems to be seen as the decisive factor. Thus, it is not enough to focus only on measures that aim to remedy the information deficit on the part of medical providers. Measures must be taken that can create a granting and respectful attitude towards transgender individuals.