1,720,963 research outputs found
What is the patient acceptability of real time 1:1 videoconferencing in an orthopaedics setting? A systematic review
No full textBackground: Real time 1:1 videoconferencing (VC) has the potential to play an important role in the management of orthopaedic pathologies. Despite positive reporting of telemedicine studies uptake in clinical practice remains low. Acceptability to patients is an important element of system take-up in telemedicine and a focus towards qualitative methodology may explore the underlying reasons behind its acceptability. In this paper we have systematically reviewed qualitative studies that include evidence about patient responses to VC services in an orthopaedic setting. Objectives: To determine whether real time 1:1 videoconferencing is acceptable to patients in an orthopaedic setting. Data sources: MEDLINE, AMED, PsychINFO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database, Evidence Search and Open Grey were searched with forwards and backwards reference screening of eligible papers. Eligibility criteria: Qualitative studies exploring the acceptability of VC in an orthopaedic setting were included. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Studies were appraised using the CASP tool. A Directed Content Framework Analysis was conducted using Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Four studies were included for review. The themes for the four studies did not overlap and did not report clinician acceptability of VC. The Directed Content Analysis of these papers using Normalisation Process Theory highlighted factors which contribute towards its acceptability. Conclusions: All studies concluded that the use of VC was acceptable. Further qualitative research exploring both patient and clinician acceptability is required utilising a theoretical framework to allow for repeatability and generalisability. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42015024944.</p
What is the content of virtually delivered pain management programmes for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review
No full textIntroduction: Virtual consultations (VC) have been embraced by healthcare organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. VC allows continuation of patient care while adhering to government advised restrictions and social distancing measures. Multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs) are a core element of many pain services and utilising virtual methods to deliver PMPs has allowed them to continue to provide care. This systematic review aimed to explore the content of existing virtually delivered PMPs and discuss if and how these findings can be used to guide clinical delivery. Methods: Eligible studies included adults (aged ⩾18 years) with persistent musculoskeletal pain and any virtually delivered intervention that was described as a PMP or that had components of PMPs. Databases were searched from inception until July 2020. We performed a content analysis comparing existing interventions with established evidence-based clinical guidelines published by the British Pain Society (BPS). Intervention reporting quality was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist: an established checklist developed to improve the completeness of the reporting of interventions. Results: Eight studies were included. One intervention included six of the seven components recommended by the BPS; none included all seven. ‘Skills training and activity management’ was present in all eight interventions; ‘education’ and ‘cognitive therapy methods’ were present in six interventions; ‘graded activation’ and ‘methods to enhance acceptance, mindfulness and psychological flexibility’ were present in four interventions; ‘physical exercise’ was present in two interventions and ‘graded exposure’ was present in one intervention. None of the studies described all 12 items of the TIDieR checklist adequately enough for replication. Conclusion: Published virtual PMPs partially meet established clinical guidelines. Future virtual PMPs should be based on evidence-based clinical guidelines, and more research is needed to explore the effectiveness of virtually delivered PMPs and each recommended component.</p
Factors that influence patient preferences for virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study
Full text linkObjectives To identify, characterise and explain factors that influence patient preferences, from the perspective of patients and clinicians, for virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting.Design Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and abductive analysis.Setting A physiotherapy and occupational therapy department situated within a tertiary orthopaedic centre in the UK.Participants Patients who were receiving orthopaedic rehabilitation for a musculoskeletal problem. Occupational therapists, physiotherapists or therapy technicians involved in the delivery of orthopaedic rehabilitation for patients with a musculoskeletal problem.Results Twenty-two patients and 22 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The average interview length was 48 minutes. Four major factors were found to influence preference: the situation of care (the ways that patients understand and explain their clinical status, their treatment requirements and the care pathway), the expectations of care (influenced by a patients desire for contact, psychological status, previous care and perceived requirements), the demands on the patient (due to each patients respective social situation and the consequences of choice) and the capacity to allocate resources to care (these include financial, infrastructural, social and healthcare resources).Conclusion This study has identified key factors that appear to influence patient preference for virtual consultations in orthopaedic rehabilitation. A conceptual model of these factors, derived from empirical data, has been developed highlighting how they combine and compete. A series of questions, based on these factors, have been developed to support identification of preferences in a clinical setting
Patient, clinician and manager experience of the accelerated implementation of virtual consultations following COVID‐19: a qualitative study of preferences in a tertiary orthopaedic rehabilitation setting
Full text linkAim: to investigate the experiences of patients, clinicians and managers during the accelerated implementation of virtual consultations (VCs) due to COVID-19. To understand how patient preferences are constructed and organized.Methods: semi-structured interviews with patients, clinicians and managerial staff at a single specialist orthopaedic centre in the United Kingdom. The interview schedule and coding frame were based on Normalisation Process Theory. Interviews were conducted over the telephone or by video call. Abductive analysis of interview transcripts extended knowledge from previous research to identify, characterize and explain how patient preferences for VC were formed and arranged.Results: fifty-five participants were included (20 patients, 20 clinicians, 15 managers). Key mechanisms that contribute to the formation of patient preferences were identified. These were: (a) context for the consultation (normative expectations, relational expectations, congruence and potential); (b) the available alternatives and the implementation process (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring). Patient preferences are mediated by the clinician and organisational preferences through the influence of the consultation context, available alternatives and the implementation process.Conclusions: this study reports the cumulative analysis of five empirical studies investigating patient preferences for VC before and during the COVID-19 pandemic as VC transitioned from an experimental clinic to a compulsory form of service delivery. This study has identified mechanisms that explain how preferences for VC come about and how these relate to organisational and clinician preferences. Since clinical pathways are shaped by interactions between patient, clinicians and organisational preferences, future service design must strike a balance between patient preferences and the preferences of clinicians and organisations.Patient and Public Contribution: the CONNECT Project Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group provided guidance on the conduct and design of the research. This took place with remote meetings between the lead researcher and the chair of the PPI group during March and April 2020. Patient information documentation and the interview schedule were developed with the PPI group to ensure that these were accessible
Protocol for the CONNECT Project: a mixed methods study investigating patient preferences for communication technology use in orthopaedic rehabilitation consultations
No full textIntroduction: Technology has been placed at the centre of global health policy and has been cited as having the potential to increase efficiency and remove geographical boundaries for patients to access care. Communication technology may support patients with orthopaedic problems, which is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. There are several examples of technology being used in clinical research, although uptake in practice remains low. An understanding of patient preferences will support the design of a communication technology supported treatment pathway for patients undergoing orthopaedic rehabilitation.Methods and analysis: This mixed methods project will be conducted in four phases. In phase I, a systematic review of qualitative studies reporting communication technology use for orthopaedic rehabilitation will be conducted to devise a taxonomy of tasks patients’ face when using these technologies to access their care. In phase II, qualitative interviews will investigate how the work of being a patient changes during face-to-face and communication technology consultations and how these changes influence preference. In phase III, a discrete choice experiment will investigate the factors that influence preferences for the use of communication technology for orthopaedic rehabilitation consultations. Phase IV will be a practical application of these results. We will design a ‘minimally disruptive’ communication technology supported pathway for patients undergoing orthopaedic rehabilitation.Ethics and dissemination: The design of a pathway and underpinning patient preference will assist in understanding factors that might influence technology implementation for clinical care. This study requires ethical approval for phases II, III and IV. Approvals have been received for phase II (approval received on 4 December 2016 from the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 255172, REC Reference 18/SC/0663)) and phase III (approval received on 18 October 2019 from the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 248064, REC Reference 19/LO/1586)) and will be sought for phase IV. All participants will provide informed written consent prior to being enrolled onto the study
“Stuff tailored to younger people, it’s like we don’t exist”: What young women want to know about surgery for early stage breast cancer
No full textA qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations
Full text linkObjectives: to conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC.Methods: a quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference.Results: eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive.Conclusions: this study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
