Conectar
by Ryan D. Parsons, Sarah Bauermeister, Julian Turner, Natalie Coles, Simon Thompson, Emma Squires, Tracey Riseborough, Joshua Bauermeister, Abbie Simpkin, Naomi French, Shankly Cragg, Hazel Lockhart-Jones, Olly Robertson, Abhaya Adlakha, Ian Thompson, John Gallacher
Adolescent mental health and wellbeing are of growing concern globally with increased incidence of mental health disorders in young people. BrainWaves provides a framework for relevant and diverse research programmes into adolescent mental health and wellbeing that can translate into practice and policy. The research programme is a partnership with schools centred on establishing a large (n > 50,000) cohort and trials platform. Reported here is the BrainWaves cohort pilot study. This was designed as proof-of-concept for our recruitment and data capture pipelines, and for cost-modelling. A network of research schools was recruited and a computer-driven questionnaire administered. The eligible population was 16 + year olds who were attending the research schools. Of 41 research schools, 36 (88%) participated over one three-week and one four-week data collection period. From an eligible population of 33,531 young people, 16,010 (48%) attended the study lesson and created an account. Of the 16,010 (100%) who created an account, 15,444 (96%) consented to participate, 9,321 (60%) consented to linkage of research data with educational records, and 6,069 (39%) consented to linkage of research with school/college attendance data. Participants were aged 16–19 years, 59% female, and 76% White. Higher levels of anxiety and depression were found in females than males. Higher levels of media-based social networking were found in females, whereas higher levels of media-based gaming were found in males. Females were more likely to report insufficient sleep whilst males were more likely to report high levels of exercise. This study confirmed an ability to recruit at pace and scale. Whilst the response-rate does not indicate a representative sample, the demographics describe an inclusive and diverse sample. Data collected confirmed findings from previous studies indicating that the electronic data collection methods did not materially bias the findings. Initial cost-modelling suggests these data were collected for around £20 per participant.The use of digitally enabled technology is considered a promising platform to prevent morbidity and enhance youth mental health as youth are growing up in the digital world and accessing the Internet at increasingly younger age. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise the models, frameworks and strategies that have been used to study the implementation of digital mental health interventions targeted at youth aged 15–34 years.
We will conduct a scoping review following the Arksey-O’Malley five-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Implementation methods will be operationalised according to pre-established aims: (1) process models that describe or guide the implementation process; (2) evaluation frameworks evaluating or measuring the success of implementation; and (3) implementation strategies used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Primary research studies in all languages will be identified in CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ERIC, Education Research Complete, MEDLINE and APA PsycINFO on 6 January 2025. Two reviewers will calibrate screening criteria and the data charting form and will independently screen records and abstract data. We will use the Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to classify digital interventions based on functions, and a pre-established working taxonomy to synthesise conceptually distinct implementation outcomes. Convergent integrated data synthesis will be performed.
Ethical approval is not applicable as this scoping review will be conducted only on data presented in the published literature. Findings will be published and directly infused into our multidisciplinary team of academic researchers, youth partners, health professionals and knowledge users (healthcare and non-governmental organisation decision makers) to co-design and pilot test a digital psychoeducational health intervention to engage, educate and empower youth to be informed stewards of their mental health.
To explore experience and prevalence of vulval lichen sclerosus (VLS) diagnosis in general practice using an anonymous patient survey.
Quantitative descriptive cross-sectional survey informed by previous qualitative interviews and developed with patient representatives, sent to people recorded in general practice as having a VLS diagnosis.
General practices (n=24) in the UK (West Midlands).
n=177 respondents.
One in five respondents reported that they had been misdiagnosed, and about a third reported that it was a struggle to get treatment. Only one third said they received regular check-ups, recommended in clinical guidelines. One-fifth reported they were not being treated with topical corticosteroids, the main first-line treatment for VLS. Less than one in 10 were members of a support group, and around four in 10 felt they had to hide their condition and did not speak to anyone else about it. Survey respondents prioritised improving education and awareness among healthcare professionals (HCPs).
General practitioners and other primary care HCPs have a key role in recognising, diagnosing and managing VLS. Improving education and awareness among HCPs was a key priority for this patient group. Patients should be made aware of the need for ongoing treatment and yearly check-ups to prevent or manage disease progression. VLS is a highly stigmatised condition, and appointments with HCPs may be the only opportunity for people to talk about their experience.
To integrate the quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of the PEACH (Procalcitonin: Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients) study, which evaluated whether procalcitonin (PCT) testing should be used to guide antibiotic prescribing and safely reduce antibiotic use among patients admitted to acute UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.
Triangulation to integrate quantitative and qualitative data.
Four data sources in 148 NHS hospitals in England and Wales including data from 6089 patients.
A triangulation protocol was used to integrate three quantitative data sources (survey, organisation-level data and patient-level data: data sources 1, 2 and 3) and one qualitative data source (clinician interviews: data source 4) collected as part of the PEACH study. Analysis of data sources initially took place independently, and then, key findings for each data source were added to a matrix. A series of interactive discussion meetings took place with quantitative, qualitative and clinical researchers, together with patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives, to group the key findings and produce seven statements relating to the study objectives. Each statement and the key findings related to that statement were considered alongside an assessment of whether there was agreement, partial agreement, dissonance or silence across all four data sources (convergence coding). The matrix was then interpreted to produce a narrative for each statement.
To explore whether PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seven statements were produced relating to the PEACH study objective. There was agreement across all four data sources for our first key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. The second statement was related to this key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Partial agreement was found between data sources 3 (quantitative patient-level data) and 4 (qualitative clinician interviews). There were no data regarding safety from data sources 1 or 2 (quantitative survey and organisational-level data) to contribute to this statement. For statements three and four, ‘PCT was not used as a central factor influencing antibiotic prescribing’, and ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department (ED)/acute medical unit (AMU),’ there was agreement between data source 2 (organisational-level data) and data source 4 (interviews with clinicians). The remaining two data sources (survey and patient-level data) contributed no data on this statement. For statement five, ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the intensive care unit (ICU)’, there was disagreement between data sources 2 and 3 (organisational-level data and patient-level data) and data source 4 (clinician interviews). Data source 1 (survey) did not provide data on this statement. We therefore assigned dissonance to this statement. For statement six, ‘There were many barriers to implementing PCT testing during the first wave of COVID-19’, there was partial agreement between data source 1 (survey) and data source 4 (clinician interviews) and no data provided by the two remaining data sources (organisational-level data and patient-level data). For statement seven, ‘Local PCT guidelines/protocols were perceived to be valuable’, only data source 4 (clinician interviews) provided data. The clinicians expressed that guidelines were valuable, but as there was no data from the other three data sources, we assigned silence to this statement.
There was agreement between all four data sources on our key finding ‘during the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Data, methodological and investigator triangulation, and a transparent triangulation protocol give validity to this finding.
The aims of the study were to explore the experiences of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and their partners and examine the factors influencing partner involvement in GDM management, seeking to inform a targeted couple-based intervention.
A descriptive qualitative study.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 women with GDM and their partners. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from a tertiary hospital in Xi'an, China. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
Three themes and 12 subthemes were identified. Theme I: Women's expectations of their partner's involvement in GDM management—practical support and emotional support. Theme II: Partner involvement in GDM management—constructive involvement, unhelpful involvement with good intentions and insufficient involvement. Theme III: Factors that influence partner involvement in GDM—knowledge of GDM, GDM risk perception, health consciousness, attitudes towards the treatment plan, couple communication regarding GDM management, family roles and appraisal of GDM management responsibility.
Women desired practical and emotional support from partners. The types of partner involvement in GDM management varied. Some partners provided constructive support, while some partners' involvement was limited, non-existent or actively unhelpful. By combining these results with the factors influencing partner involvement, our findings may help healthcare professionals develop strategies to involve partners in GDM care and enhance women's ability to manage GDM.
Partner involvement in GDM care may help them understand and better attend to women's needs, thus improving their experience and potential outcomes. This study highlights novel factors that need to be considered in developing couple-based interventions for this population.
The reporting follows the COREQ checklist.
Some patients were involved in data interpretation. There is no public contribution.
FreshRSS 