Suchergebnisse

'Person‐centredness' is a ubiquitous term, employed in modern care services to signify policies and practices that attend to the uniqueness of each individual user. Despite being highly regarded in older adult community care services, there is much ambiguity over its precise meaning. Existing reviews of person‐centredness and its attributes have tended to focus on the medico‐nursing literature, neglecting other interpretations, such as those relevant to community social care. A new literature‐based concept synthesis reported here identified 12 common attributes within the broad themes of 'understanding the person', 'engagement in decision‐making' and 'promoting the care relationship'. The review also contrasts how these attributes are applied across different interpretations of person‐centredness. The article argues that not all attributes necessarily pull in the same direction, and that older adults may require them to be delivered in different ways than they are to younger people. Thus, a 'one‐size‐fits‐all' approach should be discouraged in community care.Key Practitioner Message: • 'Person‐centredness' is open to multiple interpretations, causing difficulties for services trying to gauge performance and quality; • Three themes are central to person‐centred services: 'understanding the person', 'engagement in decision‐making' and 'promoting the care relationship'; • A 'one‐size‐fits‐all' approach to applying person‐centredness is to be discouraged.

Worldwide, policymakers, health system managers, practitioners and researchers struggle to use evidence to improve policy and practice. There is growing recognition that this challenge relates to the complex systems in which we work. The corresponding increase in complexity-related discourse remains primarily at a theoretical level. This paper moves the discussion to a practical level, proposing actions that can be taken to implement evidence successfully in complex systems. Key to success is working with, rather than trying to simplify or control, complexity. The integrated actions relate to co-producing knowledge, establishing shared goals and measures, enabling leadership, ensuring adequate resourcing, contributing to the science of knowledge-to-action, and communicating strategically.

This 2016 theme section of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine is supported by funding from the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) to support the dissemination of research on digital health interventions, methods, and implications for preventive medicine. This paper is one of the outputs of two workshops, one supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC)/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Program (PI Susan Michie), the OBSSR (William Riley, Director) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (PI Kevin Patrick); and the other by the National Science Foundation (PI Donna Spruitj-Metz, proposal # 1539846). The Health Economics Research Unit is funded in part by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Laura Bojke was supported in the preparation/submission of this paper by the HEOM Theme of the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR CLAHRC YH, www.clarhrc-yh.nir.ac.uk). The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent those of the funders. Elizabeth Murray is Managing Director of a not-for-profit Community Interest Company, HeLP-Digital, which aims to disseminate digital health interventions to the National Health Service. No other financial disclosures were reported by the author of this paper. ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antibody testing was proposed by several countries as a surveillance tool to monitor the spread of the virus and potentially to ease restrictions. In the UK, antibody testing originally formed the third pillar of the UK Government's COVID-19 testing programme and was thought to offer hope that those with a positive antibody test result could return to normal life. However, at that time scientists and the public had little understanding of the longevity of COVID-19 antibodies, and whether they provided immunity to reinfection or transmission of the virus. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the UK public's understanding of COVID-19 testing, perceived test accuracy, the meaning of a positive test result, willingness to adhere to restrictive measures in response to an antibody test result and how they expect other people to respond. METHODS: On-line synchronous focus groups were conducted in April/May 2020 during the first wave of the pandemic and the most stringent period of the COVID-19 restrictive measures. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: There was confusion in responses as to whether those with a positive or negative test should return to work and which restrictive measures would apply to them or their household members. Participants raised concerns about the wider public response to positive antibody test results and the adverse behavioural effects. There were worries that antibody tests could create a divided society particularly if those with a positive test result were given greater freedoms or chose to disregard the restrictive measures. CONCLUSION: Should these tests be offered more widely, information should be developed in consultation with the public to ensure clarity and address uncertainty about test results and subsequent behaviours.

Philosophy; Medicine—Philosophy; Epistemology

Background:
There has been a rapid increase in the number of, and demand for, organisations offering behavioural science advice to government over the last ten years. Yet we know little of the state of science and the experiences of these evidence providers.
Aims and objectives:
To identify current practice in this emerging field and the factors that impact on the production of high-quality and policy-relevant research.
Methods:
A qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with representatives from a purposeful sample of 15 units in the vanguard of international behavioural science research in policy. The data were analysed thematically.
Findings:
Relationships with policymakers were important in the inception of units, research conduct, implementation and dissemination of findings. Knowledge exchange facilitated a shared understanding of policy issues/context, and of behavioural science. Sufficient funding was crucial to maintain critical capacity in the units' workforces, build a research portfolio beneficial to policymakers and the units, and to ensure full and transparent dissemination.
Discussion and conclusion:
Findings highlight the positive impact of strong evidence-provider/user relationships and the importance of governments' commitment to co-produced research programmes to address policy problems and transparency in the dissemination of methods and findings. From the findings we have created a framework, 'STEPS' (Sharing, Transparency, Engagement, Partnership, Strong relationships), of five recommendations for units working with policymakers. These findings will be of value to all researchers conducting research on behalf of government.

Piroska Östlin and colleagues argue that a paradigm shift is needed to keep the focus on health equity within the social determinants of health research agenda.

Introduction: Reductions in traffic speed can potentially offer multiple health and public health benefits. In 2016, implementation of 20mph (30kph) speed limit interventions began in Edinburgh (city-wide) and Belfast (city centre). The aims of this paper are to describe 1) the broad theoretical approach and design of two natural experimental studies to evaluate the 20mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast and 2) how these studies allowed us to test and explore theoretical mechanisms of 20mph speed limit interventions. Methods: The evaluation consisted of several work packages, each with different research foci, including the political decision-making processes that led to the schemes, their implementation processes, outcomes (including traffic speed, perceptions of safety, and casualties) and cost effectiveness. We used a combination of routinely and locally collected quantitative data and primary quantitative and qualitative data. Results: The evaluation identified many contextual factors influencing the likelihood of 20mph speed limits reaching the political agenda. There were substantial differences between the two sites in several aspects related to implementation. Reductions in speed resulted in significant reductions in collisions and casualties, particularly in Edinburgh, which had higher average speed at baseline. The monetary value of collisions and casualties prevented are likely to exceed the costs of the intervention and thus the overall balance of costs and benefits is likely to be favourable. Conclusions: Innovative study designs, including natural experiments, are important for assessing the impact of 'real world' public health interventions. Using multiple methods, this project enabled a deeper understanding of not only the effects of the intervention but the factors that explain how and why the intervention and the effects did or did not occur. Importantly it has shown that 20mph speed limits can lead to reductions in speed, collisions and casualties, and are therefore an effective public health intervention.

Background: Policy analysis is considered essential for achieving successful reforms in health promotion and public health. The only framework for physical activity (PA) policy analysis was developed at a time when the field of PA policy research was in its early stages. PA policy research has since grown, and our understanding of what elements need to be included in a comprehensive analysis of PA policy is now more refined. This study developed a new conceptual framework for PA policy analysis – the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework. Methods: The development of the CAPPA framework was based on: (i) an extensive review of literature; (ii) an open discussion between the authors; (iii) three rounds of a Delphi process; and (iv) two-rounds of consultations with PA policy stakeholders. Results: The CAPPA framework specifies 38 elements of a comprehensive analysis of PA policies in the following six categories, which comprise the building blocks of the framework: (i) purpose of analysis (including auditing and assessment of policies); (ii) policy level (including: international; national; subnational; local; and institutional policies); (iii) policy sector (including: health; sport; recreation and leisure; education; transport; environment; urban/rural planning and design; tourism; work and employment; public finance; and research sectors); (iv) type of policy (including: formal written policies; unwritten formal statements; written standards and guidelines; formal procedures; and informal policies); (v) stage of policy cycle (including: agenda setting; formulation; endorsement/legitimisation; implementation; evaluation; maintenance; termination; and succession); and (vi) scope of analysis (including availability; context; processes; actors; political will; content; and effects). Based on the CAPPA framework, we also proposed broad and inclusive definitions of PA policy and PA policy analysis. Conclusion: The CAPPA framework may be used to guide future studies related to PA ...

Background: Policy analysis is considered essential for achieving successful reforms in health promotion and public health. The only framework for physical activity (PA) policy analysis was developed at a time when the field of PA policy research was in its early stages. PA policy research has since grown, and our understanding of what elements need to be included in a comprehensive analysis of PA policy is now more refined. This study developed a new conceptual framework for PA policy analysis - the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework. Methods: The development of the CAPPA framework was based on: (i) an extensive review of literature; (ii) an open discussion between the authors; (iii) three rounds of a Delphi process; and (iv) two-rounds of consultations with PA policy stakeholders. Results: The CAPPA framework specifies 38 elements of a comprehensive analysis of PA policies in the following six categories, which comprise the building blocks of the framework: (i) purpose of analysis (including auditing and assessment of policies); (ii) policy level (including: international; national; subnational; local; and institutional policies); (iii) policy sector (including: health; sport; recreation and leisure; education; transport; environment; urban/rural planning and design; tourism; work and employment; public finance; and research sectors); (iv) type of policy (including: formal written policies; unwritten formal statements; written standards and guidelines; formal procedures; and informal policies); (v) stage of policy cycle (including: agenda setting; formulation; endorsement/legitimisation; implementation; evaluation; maintenance; termination; and succession); and (vi) scope of analysis (including availability; context; processes; actors; political will; content; and effects). Based on the CAPPA framework, we also proposed broad and inclusive definitions of PA policy and PA policy analysis. Conclusion: The CAPPA framework may be used to guide future studies related to PA policy and to provide a context for the analysis of its specific components. The framework could be used in the same way for sedentary behaviour policy research. Future research should examine the extent to which PA policy analysis has covered each of the elements specified in the CAPPA framework and analyse the elements for which evidence is lacking. Future studies should also determine whether the existing tools allow for auditing and assessment of all the CAPPA elements and develop new tools if needed to allow for a more comprehensive PA policy analysis.

peer-reviewed ; Background: Policy analysis is considered essential for achieving successful reforms in health promotion and public health. The only framework for physical activity (PA) policy analysis was developed at a time when the field of PA policy research was in its early stages. PA policy research has since grown, and our understanding of what elements need to be included in a comprehensive analysis of PA policy is now more refined. This study developed a new conceptual framework for PA policy analysis – the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework. Methods: The development of the CAPPA framework was based on:(i)an extensive review of literature; (ii) an open discussion between the authors; (iii) three rounds of a Delphi process; and (iv) two-rounds of consultations with PA policy stakeholders. Results: The CAPPA framework specifies 38 elements of a comprehensive analysis of PA policies in the following six categories, which comprise the building blocks of the framework: (i) purpose of analysis (including auditing and assessment of policies); (ii) policy level (including: international; national; subnational; local; and institutional policies); (iii) policy sector (including: health; sport; recreation and leisure; education; transport; environment; urban/rural planning and design; tourism; work and employment; public finance; and research sectors); (iv) type of policy (including: formal written policies; unwritten formal statements; written standards and guidelines; formal procedures; and informal policies); (v) stage of policy cycle (including: agenda setting; formulation;endorsement/legitimisation; implementation; evaluation; maintenance; termination; and succession); and (vi) scope of analysis (including availability; context; processes; actors; political will; content; and effects). Based on the CAPPA framework, we also proposed broad and inclusive definitions of PA policy and PA policy analysis. Conclusion: The CAPPA framework may be used to guide future studies ...

BackgroundPolicy analysis is considered essential for achieving successful reforms in health promotion and public health. The only framework for physical activity (PA) policy analysis was developed at a time when the field of PA policy research was in its early stages. PA policy research has since grown, and our understanding of what elements need to be included in a comprehensive analysis of PA policy is now more refined. This study developed a new conceptual framework for PA policy analysis - the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework.MethodsThe development of the CAPPA framework was based on: (i) an extensive review of literature; (ii) an open discussion between the authors; (iii) three rounds of a Delphi process; and (iv) two-rounds of consultations with PA policy stakeholders.ResultsThe CAPPA framework specifies 38 elements of a comprehensive analysis of PA policies in the following six categories, which comprise the building blocks of the framework: (i) purpose of analysis (including auditing and assessment of policies); (ii) policy level (including: international; national; subnational; local; and institutional policies); (iii) policy sector (including: health; sport; recreation and leisure; education; transport; environment; urban/rural planning and design; tourism; work and employment; public finance; and research sectors); (iv) type of policy (including: formal written policies; unwritten formal statements; written standards and guidelines; formal procedures; and informal policies); (v) stage of policy cycle (including: agenda setting; formulation; endorsement/legitimisation; implementation; evaluation; maintenance; termination; and succession); and (vi) scope of analysis (including availability; context; processes; actors; political will; content; and effects). Based on the CAPPA framework, we also proposed broad and inclusive definitions of PA policy and PA policy analysis.ConclusionThe CAPPA framework may be used to guide future studies related to PA policy and to provide a context for the analysis of its specific components. The framework could be used in the same way for sedentary behaviour policy research. Future research should examine the extent to which PA policy analysis has covered each of the elements specified in the CAPPA framework and analyse the elements for which evidence is lacking. Future studies should also determine whether the existing tools allow for auditing and assessment of all the CAPPA elements and develop new tools if needed to allow for a more comprehensive PA policy analysis.

BackgroundPolicy analysis is considered essential for achieving successful reforms in health promotion and public health. The only framework for physical activity (PA) policy analysis was developed at a time when the field of PA policy research was in its early stages. PA policy research has since grown, and our understanding of what elements need to be included in a comprehensive analysis of PA policy is now more refined. This study developed a new conceptual framework for PA policy analysis - the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework.MethodsThe development of the CAPPA framework was based on: (i) an extensive review of literature; (ii) an open discussion between the authors; (iii) three rounds of a Delphi process; and (iv) two-rounds of consultations with PA policy stakeholders.ResultsThe CAPPA framework specifies 38 elements of a comprehensive analysis of PA policies in the following six categories, which comprise the building blocks of the framework: (i) purpose of analysis (including auditing and assessment of policies); (ii) policy level (including: international; national; subnational; local; and institutional policies); (iii) policy sector (including: health; sport; recreation and leisure; education; transport; environment; urban/rural planning and design; tourism; work and employment; public finance; and research sectors); (iv) type of policy (including: formal written policies; unwritten formal statements; written standards and guidelines; formal procedures; and informal policies); (v) stage of policy cycle (including: agenda setting; formulation; endorsement/legitimisation; implementation; evaluation; maintenance; termination; and succession); and (vi) scope of analysis (including availability; context; processes; actors; political will; content; and effects). Based on the CAPPA framework, we also proposed broad and inclusive definitions of PA policy and PA policy analysis.ConclusionThe CAPPA framework may be used to guide future studies related to PA policy and to ...