Conectar
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of the research process to facilitate social change and increase research relevance. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a CBPR tool in which individuals with lived experience and community organisations are integrated into the research process and ensure the work aligns with community priorities. We seek to (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs and (2) identify the scope of literature on minimising power dynamics between organisations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together.
This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework, informed by Levac et al, and will be reported using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Grey literature references and reference lists of included articles published between 1 January 1990 and 30 March 2023 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts will be decided by consensus or a third reviewer. Thematic analysis will be applied in three phases: open coding, axial coding and abstraction. Extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. At this time, a preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance.
Formal ethics approval is not required for this review. Review findings will inform ongoing and future CBPR community advisory board dynamics.
The protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QF5D3)
To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome.
This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%.
Specialist outpatient services.
Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England.
A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England.
55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics.
This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.
To explore nurses' experiences of providing support to South Asian (SA) people with dementia and their family carers and to identify barriers and enablers of good transcultural care.
A qualitative, phenomenological design was used.
Fifteen registered community and in-patient nurses were recruited via one NHS Mental Health Foundation Trust. Nurses were from diverse backgrounds (Black, Ghanaian, Irish, Mauritian and White), 13 females and 2 males, and had been qualified from between 2 and 49 years. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted between July and October 2019.
A thematic analysis identified three themes. ‘Communication challenges’ highlighted the impact of language barriers and the consequences of misunderstandings due to a dissonance in cultural values between nurses and interpreters. ‘The bi-directional impact of culture’ identified the two-way dynamics of transcultural work, the process of countering mutual stigma, and revealed an original perspective on how ‘cultural desire’ grows through practice experiences rather than being a prior motivation for learning. ‘Learning experiences’ showed that most learning was informal, experiential and prolonged, with nurses feeling they had unmet learning needs.
Nurses have minimal training opportunities and are under-supported in their transcultural work, potentially perpetuating the disadvantages that SA people with dementia and their families face in relation to healthcare. Enhanced cultural understanding of self and others and application of specific communication strategies could support nurses, together with interpreters, to build rapport and effective working relationships with each other and service users.
Transcultural nursing is a key competency, but nurses experience difficulties with providing care which is recognized as effective by SA family carers. The development of more acceptable and effective services requires improved mutual cultural understanding between nurses, interpreters and families, underpinned by joint brief training interventions, leading to more effective professional communication, better care outcomes and improved satisfaction with services.
Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines.
This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient–participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient–participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned.
The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations.
ACTRN12622001505796.
FreshRSS 