Dataset Information

Understanding patient views and experiences of the IDENTIfication of PALLiative care needs (IDENTI-Pall): a qualitative interview study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

More people are living with multimorbidity, defined as two or more long-term physical or mental health conditions. Multimorbidity is associated with poor quality of life and high treatment burden. Palliative care identification tools have been developed for use in primary care to seek out patients who could benefit from a palliative approach to their care. There has been little evaluative research on such tools; patient perspectives on the process of identifying their palliative care needs is a significant gap. The aim of this research is to provide new understanding into patient perspectives of the experience of having their palliative care needs identified, and the impact on their healthcare.

Methods and analysis

This qualitative study will employ semistructured interviews to elicit the views of participants. We will purposively sample 10-12 adults with advanced serious illness who have been identified by their primary care team as having palliative care needs, and/or are receiving care from specialist palliative care services. A family member or carer may be included in an interview at the participant's request. A descriptive, thematic analysis will be carried out using the data analysis software NVivo.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been granted by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and through conference presentations. Other activities include the development of patient-centred outcomes for clinical practice and policy in relation to the use of palliative care identification tools.

Trial registration number

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Studies Portfolio, UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Study number 51296.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9196159 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Opioids (e.g. morphine) are affordable, effective interventions for cancer-related pain. However, equity of access to this key medication remains a global challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to explore views of palliative care providers and public-representatives about opioid analgesia access in two States in India. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Transcribed audio-recordings were subjected to thematic analysis using a Framework Approach. Palliative care providers and public-representatives were purposively sampled from services reporting consistent opioid availability and prescribing (≥4kg per annum) from Karnataka and Kerala. Twenty participants (doctors (10), nurses (4), pharmacists (2), service managers (2) and public-representatives (2) were interviewed. Three themes were identified: 1) Attitudes and awareness: opioid treatments are perceived as end-of-life (last days/weeks) interventions; fears of addiction and misunderstanding of pain management goals limit access. 2) Expected and unexpected inequities: patients/carers from lower socioeconomic strata accept doctor recommendations if opioids are affordable, more educated patients/families have reservations about opioids, delay access and perceive expensive medicines as better. Non-palliative care specialist doctors have negative entrenched views and require specialist training. 3) Experiential learning-positive experiences can positively alter attitudes (e.g., participants in Kerala report improved attitudes, awareness and understanding influenced by exposure and community awareness, but experience can also reinforce perceptions as end-of-life care. Entrenched negative views are reinforced by poor experiences while positive experiences improve attitudes. To promote access, opioid prescribing must be needs-based rather than prognosis-based. Addressing the lack of training for non-palliative care workforce would help overcome a major barrier.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to explore GPs' views and experiences of managing patients with personality disorder (PD), and their views on the role of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme as a support service. DESIGN:In-depth interviews, analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS:Fifteen GPs (7 women and 8 men) of varying age and clinical experience, working in practices that differed in terms of the socio-demographic characteristics of their patient populations. SETTING:Twelve general practices based in the West of England, UK. RESULTS:GPs described patients with PD as being challenging to work with and that this work required dedicated time and care. They described experiencing particular difficulty with monitoring their patient's mental health, as well as having little knowledge about the efficacy or availability of treatments for their attenders with PD. They were aware that this patient population often experienced poor mental health and reported a propensity for them to fall into the gap between primary and secondary mental health services, leaving GPs with little choice but to improvise their own management plans, which occasionally involved funding third-sector treatment options. In terms of IAPT services' role in managing these patients, GPs wanted shorter waiting times, better inter-agency communication, more highly trained therapists and more treatment options for patients with PD. They also wanted the service to be able to 'hold' patients with PD in treatment over a longer period than currently offered. CONCLUSIONS:Findings suggest that, overall, GPs did not consider National Health Service mental health services to offer an effective treatment for patients with PD. While they considered the IAPT programme to be a valuable service for patients with less complex mental health needs, such as depression and anxiety; they felt that the current service provision struggled to meet the needs of patients with more complex mental health needs, as exemplified by people with PD.

Project description:ObjectiveLong-term adherence to evidence-based medications in cardiometabolic diseases remains poor, despite extensive efforts to develop and test interventions and deploy clinician performance incentives. The limited success of interventions may be due to ignored factors such as patients' experience of medication-taking. Despite being potentially addressable by clinicians, these factors have not been sufficiently explored, which is particularly important as patients use increasing numbers of medications. The aim is to explore patient perspectives on medication-taking, medication properties that are barriers to adherence, and coping strategies for their medication regimen.DesignIndividual, in-person, semistructured qualitative interviews.SettingUrban healthcare system.ParticipantsTwenty-six adults taking ≥2 oral medications for diabetes, hypertension or hyperlipidaemia with non-adherence. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using developed codes to generate themes. Representative quotations were selected to illustrate themes.ResultsParticipants' mean age was 55 years, 46% were female and 39% were non-white. Six key themes were identified: (1) medication-taking viewed as a highly inconvenient action (that patients struggle to remember to do); (2) negative implications because of inconvenience or illness perceptions; (3) actual medication regimens can deviate substantially from prescribed regimens; (4) certain medication properties (especially size and similar appearance with others) may contribute to adherence deviations; (5) development of numerous coping strategies to overcome barriers and (6) suggestions to make medication-taking easier (including reducing drug costs, simplifying regimen or dosing frequency and creating more palatable medications).ConclusionPatients with poor adherence often find taking prescription medications to be undesirable and take them differently than prescribed in part due to properties of the medications themselves and coping strategies they have developed to overcome medication-taking challenges. Interventions that reduce the inconvenience of medication use and tailor medications to individual needs may be a welcome development.