Health Services and Delivery Research 

About: Health Services and Delivery Research is an academic journal published by NIHR Journals Library. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Health care & Psychological intervention. It has an ISSN identifier of 2050-4349. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 347 publications have been published receiving 8280 citations. The journal is also known as: HS&DR.

A rapid synthesis of the evidence on interventions supporting self-management for people with long-term conditions (PRISMS Practical systematic Review of Self-Management Support for long-term conditions)

Abstract: Background Despite robust evidence concerning self-management for some long-term conditions (LTCs), others lack research explicitly on self-management and, consequently, some patient groups may be overlooked. Aim To undertake a rapid, systematic overview of the evidence on self-management support for LTCs to inform health-care commissioners and providers about what works, for whom, and in what contexts. Methods Self-management is ‘the tasks . . . individuals must undertake to live with one or more chronic conditions . . . [including] . . . having the confidence to deal with medical management, role management and emotional management of their conditions’. We convened an expert workshop and identified characteristics of LTCs potentially of relevance to self-management and 14 diverse exemplar LTCs (stroke, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, dementia, epilepsy, hypertension, inflammatory arthropathies, irritable bowel syndrome, low back pain, progressive neurological disorders and type 1 diabetes mellitus). For each LTC we conducted systematic overviews of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions (‘quantitative meta-reviews’); and systematic overviews of systematic reviews of qualitative studies of patients’ experiences relating to self-management (‘qualitative meta-reviews’). We also conducted an original systematic review of implementation studies of self-management support in the LTCs. We synthesised all our data considering the different characteristics of LTCs. In parallel, we developed a taxonomy of the potential components of self-management support. Results We included 30 qualitative systematic reviews (including 515 unique studies), 102 quantitative systematic reviews (including 969 RCTs), and 61 studies in the implementation systematic review. Effective self-management support interventions are multifaceted, should be tailored to the individual, their culture and beliefs, a specific LTC and position on the disease trajectory, and underpinned by a collaborative/communicative relationship between the patient and health-care professional (HCP) within the context of a health-care organisation that actively promotes self-management. Self-management support is a complex intervention and although many components were described and trialled in the studies no single component stood out as more important than any other. Core components include (1) provision of education about the LTC, recognising the importance of understanding patients’ pre-existing knowledge and beliefs about their LTC; (2) psychological strategies to support adjustment to life with a LTC; (3) strategies specifically to support adherence to treatments; (4) practical support tailored to the specific LTC, including support around activities of daily living for disabling conditions, action plans in conditions subject to marked exacerbations, intensive disease-specific training to enable self-management of specific clinical tasks; and (5) social support as appropriate. Implementation requires a whole-systems approach which intervenes at the level of the patient, the HCP and the organisation. The health-care organisation is responsible for providing the means (both training and time/material resources) to enable HCPs to implement, and patients to benefit from, self-management support, regularly evaluating self-management processes and clinical outcomes. More widely there is a societal need to address public understanding of LTCs. The lack of public story for many conditions impacted on patient help-seeking behaviour and public perceptions of need. Conclusions Supporting self-management is inseparable from the high-quality care for LTCs. Commissioners and health-care providers should promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and rewarded aspect of care. Further research is needed to understand how health service managers and staff can achieve this culture change in their health-care organisations. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002898. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study

Abstract: © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Wilson et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

Abstract: Background: The feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy. Objectives: To (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care. Design: Two separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care. Interventions: Aggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings. Main outcome measures: Aggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being. Data sources: Searches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking. Review methods: Realist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care. Results: Providers were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit. Strengths and limitations: There was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories. Conclusions: PROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality. Future work: Future research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.

Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards) project

Abstract: Background There is growing interest in theory-driven, qualitative and mixed-method approaches to systematic review, such as realist and meta-narrative review. These approaches offer the potential to expand the knowledge base in policy-relevant areas. However, the quality of such reviews can be difficult to assess. Objectives The aim of this project was to produce methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for those seeking to undertake realist and/or meta-narrative reviews. Methods/design We (1) collated and summarised existing literature on the principles of good practice in realist and meta-narrative systematic reviews; (2) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published and in-progress reviews, thereby identifying how rigour may have been lost and how existing methods could be improved; (3) used an online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of experts from academia and policy, to produce a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (4) produced training materials with learning objectives linked to these steps; (5) refined these standards and training materials prospectively on real reviews in progress, capturing methodological and other challenges as they arose; (6) synthesised expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into more definitive guidance and standards; and (7) disseminated outputs to audiences in academia and policy. Results An important element of this study was the establishment of an e-mail mailing list to bring together researches in the field (www.jiscmail.ac.uk/RAMESES). Our literature review identified 35 and nine realist and meta-narrative reviews respectively. Analysis and discussion within the project team produced a summary of the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 37 and 33 members (for realist and meta-narrative reviews respectively). Within three rounds this panel had reached a consensus on 19 (realist) and 20 (meta-narrative) key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90% and 91% respectively. The Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses – Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards for realist syntheses and meta-narrative reviews were published in open-access journals and quickly became highly accessed. The RAMESES quality standards and training materials drew together the following sources of data: (1) personal expertise as researchers and trainers; (2) data from the Delphi panels; (3) feedback from participants at training sessions we ran; and (4) comments made on RAMESES mailing list. The quality standards and training materials are freely available online (www.ramesesproject.org). Discussion The production of these standards and guidance drew on multiple sources of knowledge and expertise, and a high degree of a consensus was achieved despite ongoing debate among researchers about the overall place of these methodologies in the secondary research toolkit. As with all secondary research methods, guidance on quality assurance and uniform reporting is an important step towards improving quality and consistency of studies. We anticipate that as more reviews are undertaken, further refinement will be needed to the publication and quality standards and training materials. Limitations The project’s outputs are not definitive and in the future updating and further development is likely to be needed. Conclusion An initial set of publication standards, quality standards and training materials have been produced for researchers, users and funders of realist or meta-narrative reviews. As realist and meta-narrative reviews are relatively new approaches to evidence synthesis, methodological development is needed for both review approaches. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health

Abstract: Policies and interventions in the health-care system may have a wide range of effects on multiple patient outcomes and operate through many clinical processes. This presents a challenge for their evaluation, especially when the effect on any one patient is small. In this essay, we explore the nature of the health-care system and discuss how the empirical evidence produced within it relates to the underlying processes governing patient outcomes. We argue for an evidence synthesis framework that first models the underlying phenomena common across different health-care settings and then makes inferences regarding these phenomena from data. Bayesian methods are recommended. We provide the examples of electronic prescribing and increased consultant provision at the weekend.