Developing Interpersonal Trust Between Service Users and Professionals in Integrated Services: Compensating for Latent Distrust, Vulnerabilities and Uncertainty Shaped by Organisational Context.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show a need for trust between stakeholders in integrated services. However, few studies have investigated how trust develops between stakeholders on a micro-level. In a Danish intersectoral intervention for persons on sick leave due to common mental disorders, we explored why trust is needed and how trust is developed between micro-level stakeholders. METHODOLOGY: The qualitative study was based on 12 observations of inter-organisational meetings, 16 interviews with service users, 24 interviews with health care professionals and employment consultants, and 8 interviews with supervisors. The analysis was guided by the theoretical concepts (dis-) trust, vulnerability and uncertainty. RESULTS: Latent distrust between involved organisations, and vulnerabilities and uncertainties related to employment consultants' statutory power over service users caused a perceived need for interpersonal trust. Time to establish knowledge-based relationships, healthcare professionals' caring approach, and creating a feeling of sharing interests were compensating trust-building strategies that were often regarded as positive. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Trust in personal relationships between stakeholders appeared to compensate for contextually shaped distrust, vulnerability and uncertainty. Identifying latent distrust, vulnerabilities, uncertainties, and power structures might be key to improving trust-building strategies in a specific context. The time-consuming process of trust-building between micro-level stakeholders should be supported structurally.

Shared Decision Making in an Integrated Mental Health and Vocational Rehabilitation Intervention: Stakeholder Practices and Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: A Danish integrated mental health care and vocational intervention was developed to support the return-to-work process for people with common mental disorders. Shared decision making was a core element of the intervention to ensure a person-centred approach. The study aim is to describe how shared decision making was practiced and experienced and to discuss its potential in this integrated care context. THEORY AND METHODS: Shared decision making practice and experience was studied in participant observation (n = 20), interviews (n = 12), focus groups interviews (n = 2), and shared plan documents (n = 12). Research methods and analyses were guided by theoretically defined ideals of shared decision making. RESULTS: Shared decision making constituted a general value rather than a structured method in practice. Clients experienced a more person-centred collaboration with professionals, compared to the regular vocational system. Contextual factors regarding vocational legislation and the intervention design influenced the decision latitude. CONCLUSION: Shared decision making has the potential to support a person-centred approach in integrated services. However, we recommend clarifying decisions applicable for shared decision making, to ensure thorough training, develop and test decision aids, and ensure supportive organisational conditions for shared decision making in interprofessional collaboration.

Developing Normative Integration among Professionals in an Intersectoral Collaboration: A Multi-Method Investigation of an Integrated Intervention for People on Sick Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Intersectoral integration is recommended in vocational rehabilitation, though difficult to implement. We describe barriers to and strategies for the development of normative integration in an intersectoral, team-based vocational rehabilitation intervention. METHOD: Attitudes and behaviours regarding the development of shared culture, norms, and goals in the collaboration between health care professionals and employment consultants were investigated through 30 semi-structured interviews, participant observation of 12 intersectoral meetings, and document analysis of 12 joint plans. RESULTS: Organisational factors and unsettled power balance between professionals constituted barriers to the development of a shared culture. These issues were resolved by establishing smaller work teams, and through health care professionals' gradual acceptance of employment consultants' control in their capacity as administrators of legislation. Some barriers to shared norms were resolved explicitly, whereas implicit diverging norms were continuously negotiated. The development of shared goals was supported by clarifying the fit between individual, professional, and organisational goals, though the alignment of goals required a paradigmatic change of mindset among the health care professionals. CONCLUSION: This study shows how normative integration among health care professionals and employment consultants is feasible in co-located intersectoral teams, with positive implications for the delivery of coherent support.

Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is on the rise worldwide. Within cancer research, PPI ensures that the rapid development of medical and technological opportunities for diagnostics, treatment and care corresponds with the needs and priorities of people affected by cancer. An overview of the experiences, outcomes and quality of recent PPI in cancer research would provide valuable information for future research. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current state of PPI in cancer research focusing on the research stages, applied methods, stated purposes and outcomes, and challenges and recommendations. METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO for literature published from December 2006 to April 2017. Original research studies describing the involvement of cancer patients, stakeholders and carers as active partners at any stage of the research process were included. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included, the majority reporting PPI at the early stages of research, that is, during the definition and prioritization of research topics and the development of recruitment strategies. Few studies reported PPI at later stages and across the research process. Challenges and recommendations were only briefly described, and critical reflection on the PPI process was lacking. CONCLUSION: PPI needs to be integrated more broadly in the cancer research process. The quality of reporting PPI should be strengthened through greater critical reflections including both positive and negative experiences of the PPI process. This will contribute to the further development of PPI and its potential in cancer research.

Research agenda for life-threatening cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify future research agendas that reflect the concerns and unexplored areas of interest for patients with life-threatening cancer, their relatives and the clinical specialists during the cancer trajectory. METHODS: Six focus group discussions were conducted addressing two different cancer trajectories: primary malignant brain tumour and acute leukaemia. For each of the two cancer trajectories, separate FGIs were carried out with patients, relatives and clinical specialists to identify important concerns, challenges and uncertainties. The FGIs were video/audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed within and across FGI groups to construct research topics. Finally, the literature was reviewed for existing evidence concerning the identified research topic(s) to strengthen the suggested research agendas. RESULTS: New research agendas related to high-grade glioma brain tumour and acute leukaemia with corresponding research questions were formulated within the topics of supportive care/palliation, education/information, rehabilitation, complementary and alternative therapy and organization of health care. CONCLUSION: User involvement in identifying research agendas has the potential to improve quality of care for patients and caregivers across the cancer trajectory, while minimizing the gap in research between the healthcare user and healthcare provider.