Health visiting in the UK in light of the COVID-19 pandemic experience (RReHOPE): a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health visiting services, providing support to under 5s and their families, are organised and delivered in very different ways in different parts of the UK. While there has been attention to the key components of health visiting practice and what works well and how, there is little research on how health visiting services are organised and delivered and how that affects their ability to meet their objectives. The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly disrupted service delivery from March 2020. This realist review aims to synthesise the evidence on changes during the pandemic to identify the potential for improving health visiting services and their delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) quality standards and Pawson's five iterative stages to locate existing theories, search for evidence, select literature, extract data, synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. It will be guided by stakeholder engagement with practitioners, commissioners, policymakers, policy advocates and people with lived experience. This approach will consider the emerging strategies and evolving contexts in which the services are delivered, and the varied outcomes for different groups. A realist logic of analysis will be used to make sense of what was happening to health visiting services during and following the pandemic response through the identification and testing of programme theories. Our refined programme theory will then be used to develop recommendations for improving the organisation, delivery and ongoing postpandemic recovery of health visiting services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: General University Ethics Panel approval has been obtained from University of Stirling (reference 7662). Dissemination will build on links to policymakers, commissioners, providers, policy advocates and the public. A range of audiences will be targeted using outputs tailored to each. A final stakeholder event focused on knowledge mobilisation will aid development of recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343117.

Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review.

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Health Check offers adults aged 40-74 an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Attendees should be offered appropriate clinical or behavioural interventions to help them to manage or reduce these risks. This project focused on understanding variation in the advice and support offered to Health Check attendees. DESIGN: We conducted a realist review, assembling a diverse body of literature via database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HMIC, Web of Science) and other search methods, and synthesised data extracted from documents using a realist logic of analysis. Our aim was to develop an understanding of contexts affecting delivery of the NHS Health Check and the underlying mechanisms producing outcomes related to the offer for attendees post-Check. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate differences in how NHS Health Check commissioners, providers and attendees understand the primary purpose of the programme. A focus on screening for disease can produce an emphasis on high-volume delivery in primary care. When delivery models are organised around behavioural approaches to risk reduction, more emphasis is placed on advice, and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. However, constrained funding and competing priorities for providers limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Attendees' experiences and responses to the programme are affected by how the programme is delivered, and by the difficulty of incorporating its outputs into their lives. CONCLUSIONS: The remit of the NHS Health Check should be reviewed with consideration of what can be effectively delivered within existing resources. Variation in delivery may be appropriate to meet local needs, but differences in how the programme's primary purpose is understood contribute to a 'postcode lottery' in post-Check advice and support. Our findings underline existing concerns that the programme may generate inequitable outcomes and raise questions about whether it can deliver positive outcomes for the majority of attendees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020163822.

Assessing the impact of online postal self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections on health inequalities, access to care and clinical outcomes in the UK: protocol for ASSIST, a realist evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the volume and proportion of testing for sexually transmitted infections that are accessed via online postal self-sampling services in the UK. ASSIST (Assessing the impact of online postal self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections on health inequalities, access to care and clinical outcomes in the UK) aims to assess the impact of these services on health inequalities, access to care, and clinical and economic outcomes, and to identify the factors that influence the implementation and sustainability of these services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ASSIST is a mixed-methods, realist evaluated, national study with an in-depth focus of three case study areas (Birmingham, London and Sheffield). An impact evaluation, economic evaluation and implementation evaluation will be conducted. Findings from these evaluations will be analysed together to develop programme theories that explain the outcomes. Data collection includes quantitative data (using national, clinic based and online datasets); qualitative interviews with service users, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders; contextual observations and documentary analysis. STATA 17 and NVivo will be used to conduct the quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/SC/0223). All quantitative data accessed and collected will be anonymous. Participants involved with qualitative interviews will be asked for informed consent, and data collected will be anonymised.Our dissemination strategy has been developed to access and engage key audiences in a timely manner and findings will be disseminated via the study website, social media, in peer-reviewed scientific journals, at research conferences, local meetings and seminars and at a concluding dissemination and networking event for stakeholders.

Tailoring cultural offers to meet the needs of older people during uncertain times: a rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: Non-medical issues (e.g. loneliness, financial concerns, housing problems) can shape how people feel physically and psychologically. This has been emphasised during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially for older people. Social prescribing is proposed as a means of addressing non-medical issues, which can include drawing on support offered by the cultural sector. METHOD: A rapid realist review was conducted to explore how the cultural sector (in particular public/curated gardens, libraries and museums), as part of social prescribing, can support the holistic well-being of older people under conditions imposed by the pandemic. An initial programme theory was developed from our existing knowledge and discussions with cultural sector staff. It informed searches on databases and within the grey literature for relevant documents, which were screened against the review's inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from these documents to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). We used the CMOCs to refine our initial programme theory. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 42 documents. CMOCs developed from these documents highlighted the importance of tailoring-shaping support available through the cultural sector to the needs and expectations of older people-through messaging, matching, monitoring and partnerships. Tailoring can help to secure benefits that older people may derive from engaging with a cultural offer-being distracted (absorbed in an activity) or psychologically held, making connections or transforming through self-growth. We explored the idea of tailoring in more detail by considering it in relation to Social Exchange Theory. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring cultural offers to the variety of conditions and circumstances encountered in later life, and to changes in social circumstances (e.g. a global pandemic), is central to social prescribing for older people involving the cultural sector. Adaptations should be directed towards achieving key benefits for older people who have reported feeling lonely, anxious and unwell during the pandemic and recovery from it.

Social prescribing for older people and the role of the cultural sector during the COVID-19 pandemic: What are link workers' views and experiences?

Older people's well-being can be bolstered by engaging with cultural activities and venues. They may be encouraged to try cultural offers by a link worker as part of social prescribing. However, the cultural sector, like all parts of life, was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; this has had implications for cultural offers available to link workers. A study was conducted to explore the views and experiences of link workers in using the cultural sector within social prescribing, particularly for older people (aged 60+) during the pandemic. An online questionnaire was distributed to and completed by link workers in the UK. Data were analysed mainly using descriptive statistics. Open text responses were clustered into similar ideas to create key concepts. Useable responses were received from 148 link workers. They highlighted a general lack of interaction between link workers and the cultural sector about how the latter could support social prescribing. Results suggested that personal familiarity with cultural offers might prompt link workers to refer to them. Some respondents proposed that cultural offers were regarded as elitist, which deterred them from referring there. However, there was a general acknowledgement that the cultural sector could contribute to social prescribing. Link workers need to regard the cultural sector as accessible, appropriate, adequate, affordable and available before referring older people to cultural offers as part of social prescribing. Link workers may benefit from becoming more familiar with cultural sector staff and offers, including online resources, so they can then propose them to patients with confidence.

Understanding how and why quality circles improve standards of practice, enhance professional development and increase psychological well-being of general practitioners: a realist synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why participation in quality circles (QCs) improves general practitioners' (GPs) psychological well-being and the quality of their clinical practice. To provide evidence-informed and practical guidance to maintain QCs at local and policy levels. DESIGN: A theory-driven mixed method. SETTING: Primary healthcare. METHOD: We collected data in four stages to develop and refine the programme theory of QCs: (1) coinquiry with Swiss and European expert stakeholders to develop a preliminary programme theory; (2) realist review with systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINHAL (1980-2020) to inform the preliminary programme theory; (3) programme refinement through interviews with participants, facilitators, tutors and managers of QCs and (4) consolidation of theory through interviews with QC experts across Europe and examining existing theories. SOURCES OF DATA: The coinquiry comprised 4 interviews and 3 focus groups with 50 European experts. From the literature search, we included 108 papers to develop the literature-based programme theory. In stage 3, we used data from 40 participants gathered in 6 interviews and 2 focus groups to refine the programme theory. In stage 4, five interviewees from different healthcare systems consolidated our programme theory. RESULT: Requirements for successful QCs are governmental trust in GPs' abilities to deliver quality improvement, training, access to educational material and performance data, protected time and financial resources. Group dynamics strongly influence success; facilitators should ensure participants exchange knowledge and generate new concepts in a safe environment. Peer interaction promotes professional development and psychological well-being. With repetition, participants gain confidence to put their new concepts into practice. CONCLUSION: With expert facilitation, clinical review and practice opportunities, QCs can improve the quality of standard practice, enhance professional development and increase psychological well-being in the context of adequate professional and administrative support. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013004826.

Optimising GPs' communication of advice to facilitate patients' self-care and prompt follow-up when the diagnosis is uncertain: a realist review of 'safety-netting' in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Safety-netting has become best practice when dealing with diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Its use, however, is highly varied and a lack of evidence-based guidance on its communication could be harming its effectiveness and putting patient safety at risk. OBJECTIVE: To use a realist review method to produce a programme theory of safety-netting, that is, advice and support provided to patients when diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain, in primary care. METHODS: Five electronic databases, web searches, and grey literature were searched for studies assessing outcomes related to understanding and communicating safety-netting advice or risk communication, or the ability of patients to self-care and re-consult when appropriate. Characteristics of included documents were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet, and full texts uploaded into NVivo and coded. A random 10% sample was independently double -extracted and coded. Coded data wasere synthesised and itstheir ability to contribute an explanation for the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of effective safety-netting communication considered. Draft context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs) were written by the authors and reviewed by an expert panel of primary care professionals and patient representatives. RESULTS: 95 documents contributed to our CMOCs and programme theory. Effective safety-netting advice should be tailored to the patient and provide practical information for self-care and reconsultation. The importance of ensuring understanding and agreement with advice was highlighted, as was consideration of factors such as previous experiences with healthcare, the patient's personal circumstances and the consultation setting. Safety-netting advice should be documented in sufficient detail to facilitate continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: We present 15 recommendations to enhance communication of safety-netting advice and map these onto established consultation models. Effective safety-netting communication relies on understanding the information needs of the patient, barriers to acceptance and explanation of the reasons why the advice is being given. Reduced continuity of care, increasing multimorbidity and remote consultations represent threats to safety-netting communication.

Sustaining community-based interventions for people affected by dementia long term: the SCI-Dem realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Community-based support for people with earlier-stage dementia and their care partners, such as regularly meeting groups and activities, can play an important part in postdiagnostic care. Typically delivered piecemeal in the UK, by a variety of agencies with inconsistent funding, provision is fragmented and many such interventions struggle to continue after only a short start-up period. This realist review investigates what can promote or hinder such interventions in being able to sustain long term. METHODS: Key sources of evidence were gathered using formal searches of electronic databases and grey literature, together with informal search methods such as citation tracking. No restrictions were made on article type or study design; only data pertaining to regularly meeting, ongoing, community-based interventions were included. Data were extracted, assessed, organised and synthesised and a realist logic of analysis applied to trace context-mechanism-outcome configurations as part an overall programme theory. Consultation with stakeholders, involved with a variety of such interventions, informed this process throughout. RESULTS: Ability to continually get and keep members; staff and volunteers; the support of other services and organisations; and funding/income were found to be critical, with multiple mechanisms feeding into these suboutcomes, sensitive to context. These included an emphasis on socialising and person-centredness; lowering stigma and logistical barriers; providing support and recognition for personnel; networking, raising awareness and sharing with other organisations, while avoiding conflict; and skilled financial planning and management. CONCLUSIONS: This review presents a theoretical model of what is involved in the long-term sustainability of community-based interventions. Alongside the need for longer-term funding and skilled financial management, key factors include the need for stigma-free, person-centred provision, sensitive to members' diversity and social needs, as well as the need for a robust support network including the local community, health and care services. Challenges were especially acute for small scale and rural groups.

Rapid realist review of the role of community pharmacy in the public health response to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Community pharmacists and their teams have remained accessible to the public providing essential services despite immense pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have successfully expanded the influenza vaccination programme and are now supporting the delivery of the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out. AIM: This rapid realist review aims to understand how community pharmacy can most effectively deliver essential and advanced services, with a focus on vaccination, during the pandemic and in the future. METHOD: An embryonic programme theory was generated using four diverse and complementary documents along with the expertise of the project team. Academic databases, preprint services and grey literature were searched and screened for documents meeting our inclusion criteria. The data were extracted from 103 documents to develop and refine a programme theory using a realist logic of analysis. Our analysis generated 13 context-mechanism-outcome configurations explaining when, why and how community pharmacy can support public health vaccination campaigns, maintain essential services during pandemics and capitalise on opportunities for expanded, sustainable public health service roles. The views of stakeholders including pharmacy users, pharmacists, pharmacy teams and other healthcare professionals were sought throughout to refine the 13 explanatory configurations. RESULTS: The 13 context-mechanism-outcome configurations are organised according to decision makers, community pharmacy teams and community pharmacy users as key actors. Review findings include: supporting a clear role for community pharmacies in public health; clarifying pharmacists' legal and professional liabilities; involving pharmacy teams in service specification design; providing suitable guidance, adequate compensation and resources; and leveraging accessible, convenient locations of community pharmacy. DISCUSSION: Community pharmacy has been able to offer key services during the pandemic. Decision makers must endorse, articulate and support a clear public health role for community pharmacy. We provide key recommendations for decision makers to optimise such a role during these unprecedented times and in the future.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871.

NHS Health Check programme: a protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: The NHS Health Check aims to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the adult population in England. The Health Check includes calculation of CVD risk and discussion of pharmacological and lifestyle approaches to manage risk, including referral to lifestyle support services. The programme is commissioned by Local Authorities (LAs) and is delivered by a range of different providers in different settings. There is significant variation in activity, with uptake ranging from 25% to 85% in different areas, and clear evidence of variation in implementation and delivery practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to understand how the NHS Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups, so that we can recommend improvements to maximise intended outcomes. To do so, we will undertake a realist review and a survey of LA public health teams. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) locate existing theories, (2) search for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. Our review will include documents describing local implementation alongside published research studies. We will recruit a stakeholder group (including Public Health England, commissioners and providers of Health Checks, plus members of the public and patients) to advise us throughout. Our survey will be sent to all 152 LAs in England to gather detailed information on programme delivery (including COVID-19-related changes) and available referral services. This will enable us to map delivery across England and relate these data to programme outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. For the survey, we have received approval from the University of Kent Research Ethics Committee. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve delivery of the NHS Health Check in different settings, for different groups. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020163822.