Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Little research has been conducted into the physical health implications of suicide bereavement compared to other causes of death. There is some evidence that suicide bereaved parents have higher morbidity, particularly in terms of chronic illness. This systematic review aims to examine the physical and psychosomatic morbidities of people bereaved by a family member’s suicide and compare them with family members bereaved by other modes of death. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from 1985 to February 2016. The search was re-run in March 2017. Peer-reviewed English language articles comparing suicide-bereaved family members to non-suicide bereaved family members on measures of physical or psychosomatic health were eligible for inclusion. Cohort, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort-based register studies were eligible for inclusion. A modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Results were synthesised using narrative synthesis. Results The literature search located 24 studies which met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies found statistically significant associations between physical health and suicide bereavement. Five of the studies found that suicide-bereaved family members were more likely to experience pain, more physical illnesses and poorer general health. They were also at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In contrast, another study in Denmark found that those bereaved by suicide had a lower risk of a number of physical health disorders, including cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic lower respiratory tract disorders compared to those bereaved by other causes of death. Additionally, a further study conducted in the United States found that suicide-bereaved children visited a GP less frequently than non-suicide bereaved children. Conclusions Review findings are relevant for clinicians working with people bereaved by suicide as they highlight that such clients are at increased risk of several adverse physical health outcomes. Future research should examine health risk behaviours of suicide-bereaved and non-suicide bereaved family members as they may confound the association between exposure and outcome. Trial Registrations The review protocol has been registered on PROSPERO, registration number CRD42016030007 .

Background International evidence suggests that an integrated multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot management is necessary to prevent ulceration and progression to amputation. Many health systems have introduced policies or models of care supporting the introduction of this evidence into practice, but little is known about the experiences of those involved in implementation. This study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of podiatrists providing integrated diabetic foot care. Methods Between October 2017 and April 2018, an online survey comprising closed and open-ended questions on podiatrists’ demographics, clinical activity, links with other services, continuous professional development activities and experiences of implementing the Model of Care was administered to podiatrists (n = 73) working for Ireland’s Health Service Executive in the community and hospital setting. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results The response rate was 68% (n = 50), with 46% (n = 23), 38% (n = 19) and 16% (n = 8) working across hospital, community and both settings, respectively. Most reported treating high-risk patients (66%), those with active foot disease (61%) and educating people about the risk of diabetes to the lower limb (80%). Reported challenges towards integrated diabetic foot care include a perceived lack of awareness of the role of podiatry amongst other healthcare professionals, poor integration between hospital and community podiatry services, especially where new services had been developed, and insufficient number of podiatrists to meet service demands. Conclusion Previous evidence has shown that there is often a gap between what is set out by a policy and what it looks like when delivered to service users. Results from the current study support this, highlighting that while most podiatrists work in line with national recommendations, there are specific gaps and challenges that need to be addressed to ensure successful policy implementation.

ObjectivesWhile diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) effectively reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, optimising referral to these programmes is challenging. Our prior research (a qualitative study on the pilot of the National Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP) and a systematic review) identified a range of barriers and facilitators to referral from healthcare workers’ perspectives. This study aims to gain consensus on the main factors influencing referral to a newly established NDPP and using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) to select behaviour change techniques (BCTs) for an implementation strategy to improve referral to the programme in the future.DesignA two-round modified online Delphi survey prioritised 17 barriers and facilitators of the referral process, followed by a mapping exercise with the BCW, which guided the identification of techniques to change referral behaviour from general practice.SettingThe survey took place online with healthcare professionals working in the primary care setting in Ireland (April to June 2024). The NDPP was in the pilot phase and was not available in all areas. This study sought to learn from this pilot phase to inform the referral process, which was not yet fully established.ParticipantsHealthcare professionals eligible to refer or involved in referral to the NDPP in Ireland (general practitioners, practice nurses and dietitians delivering the NDPP) took part in the Delphi survey. Recruitment was through a number of gatekeepers, a health service manager and professional groups who shared invitations to participate with eligible healthcare professionals.Outcome measuresIn the Delphi survey round 1, respondents were asked to rate the importance of 17 factors (nine facilitators and eight barriers) influencing referral on a 5-point Likert scale (not important to very high importance) and an open text box captured other suggested important factors. Barriers included limited practical information about the availability of the programme, concerns about workload, competing priorities and concern about patient motivation, the time commitment for patients and referral delays. Facilitators included electronic referral and feedback, promotion of the programme by healthcare professionals and consultation with patients before referral. Consensus was defined as agreement of ≥70% for each factor in the combined categories of high importance/very high importance, low/moderate importance or not important. Factors not reaching consensus after the first round were included in round 2 with any new factors from round 1. Factors that did not reach consensus or reached consensus as not important or of low/moderate importance were excluded. Only factors reaching consensus as being of high importance/very high importance across the two rounds were included in the final prioritised list.ResultsThe Delphi survey had 37 responses to round 1 and 23 (62%) responses to round 2. 12 factors reached consensus as being of high/very high importance to improve referral. The 12 factors are mapped to seven intervention functions in the BCW and to nine key BCTs (feedback on the outcome of the behaviour, social support, instruction on how to perform a behaviour, information about the health consequences, information about social and environmental consequences, demonstration of the behaviour, prompts/cues, credible source and restructuring the physical environment). The strategy to improve referrals should include education delivered by educators to referrers, educational materials on the DPP and practical support to facilitate referrals. The health service should continue to provide electronic referrals and electronic prompts to refer could be considered as part of the electronic health record.ConclusionThis study systematically prioritises factors perceived to influence referral and identifies BCTs to improve referral to an NDPP. The BCTs are a starting point for a strategy to improve referral to DPPs. Further consultation with stakeholders is recommended to discuss the acceptability, feasibility and operationalisation of the BCTs in the Irish setting.

ObjectivesDiabetes is a growing global health concern. International guidelines recommend referral to diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) for those at high risk of type 2 diabetes. However, many of those eligible to participate in DPPs are not referred. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are pivotal to the referral processes. This study aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise barriers and facilitators to referral to DPPs from the perspective of HCWs.DesignSystematic review using the best-fit framework synthesis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from January 1997 to July 2023.Eligibility criteriaQualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies exploring HCWs’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to referral to DPPs.Data extraction and synthesisOne author screened, extracted and appraised the literature while a second author independently verified at least a 20% sample at each stage. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The best-fit framework approach was used to synthesise the evidence with the Theoretical Domains Framework as the a priori framework.ResultsOf 9998 studies identified, 31 met the inclusion criteria, with a further six identified from reference and citation searching. Barriers and facilitators were coded to 11 of the 14 TDF domains and to another category ‘Expectation of Patient Barriers’. The most frequently occurring domains for both barriers and facilitators were Environmental Context and Resources, Expectation of Patient Barriers and Knowledge. HCWs felt that clear easy referral pathways to the programmes and additional staff or resources were essential to improve referral. HCWs’ were concerned that attending the DPP would place a (time and/or financial) burden on their patients which left them conflicted about referral. HCWs lacked knowledge of the effectiveness, availability and accessibility of DPPs.ConclusionsFuture strategies to improve referral to DPPs should include clear referral pathways and the resourcing of referral. Strategies are also needed to build awareness of DPPs and to address concerns among HCWs about their patients.

Background ‘Implementation interventions’ refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. Methods First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients ( n = 47) and HCP ( n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients ( n = 15) and HCPs ( n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention ‘fit’ with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. Results We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. Conclusions Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

ObjectivesInternational evidence suggests the diabetes nurse specialist (DNS) has a key role in supporting integrated management of diabetes. We examine whether hospital and community DNS currently support the integration of care, examine regional variation in aspects of the service relevant to the delivery of integrated care and identify barriers to service delivery and areas for improvement.DesignA cross-sectional survey of hospital and community-based DNS in Ireland.MethodsBetween September 2015 and April 2016, a 67-item online survey, comprising closed and open questions on their clinical role, diabetes clinics, multidisciplinary working, and barriers and facilitators to service delivery, was administered to all eligible DNS (n=152) in Ireland. DNS were excluded if they were retired or on maternity leave or extended leave.ResultsThe response rate was 66.4% (n=101): 60.6% (n=74) and 89.3% (n=25) among hospital and community DNS, respectively. Most DNS had patients with stable (81.8%) and complicated type 2 diabetes mellitus (89.9%) attending their service. The majority were delivering nurse-led clinics (81.1%). Almost all DNS had a role liaising with (91%), and providing support and education to (95%), other professionals. However, only a third reported that there was local agreement on how their service should operate between the hospital and primary care. Barriers to service delivery that were experienced by DNS included deficits in the availability of specialist staff (allied health professionals, endocrinologists and DNS), insufficient space for clinics, structured education and issues with integration.ConclusionsDelivering integrated diabetes care through a nurse specialist-led approach requires that wider service issues, including regional disparities in access to specialist resources and formalising agreements and protocols on multidisciplinary working between settings, be explicitly addressed.

Background Guidelines recommend involving intervention users in the intervention development process. However, there is limited guidance on how to involve users in a meaningful and effective way. Objective The aim of this Study within a trial was to compare participants’ experiences of taking part in one of three types of consensus meetings—people with diabetes‐only, combined people with diabetes and health‐care professionals (HCPs) or HCP‐only meeting. Design The study used a mixed methods convergent design. Quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (observation notes and semi‐structured telephone interviews) data were collected to explore participants’ experiences. A triangulation protocol was used to compare quantitative and qualitative findings. Participants People with diabetes (recruited via multiple strategies) were randomly assigned to attend the people with diabetes or combined meeting. HCPs (recruited through professional networks) attended the HCP or combined meeting based on their availability. Results Sixteen people with diabetes and 15 HCPs attended meetings, of whom 18 participated in a telephone interview. Participants’ questionnaire responses suggested similar positive experiences across the three meetings. Observation and semi‐structured interviews highlighted differences experienced by participants in the combined meeting relating to: perceived lack of common ground; feeling empowered versus undervalued; needing to feel safe and going off task to fill the void. Conclusions The qualitative theme ‘needing to feel safe’ may explain the dissonance (disagreement) between quantitative and qualitative data. In this study, involving patients and HCPs simultaneously in a consensus process was not found to be as suitable as involving each stakeholder group separately.

ObjectivesMultifactorial interventions, which involve assessing an individual’s risk of falling and providing treatment or onward referral, require coordination across settings. Using a mixed-methods design, we aimed to develop a process map to examine onward referral pathways following falls risk assessment in primary care.SettingPrimary care fall risk assessment clinics in the South of Ireland.ParticipantsFocus groups using participatory mapping techniques with primary care staff (public health nurses (PHNs), physiotherapists (PT),and occupational therapists (OT)) were conducted to plot the processes and onward referral pathways at each clinic (n=5).MethodsFocus groups were analysed in NVivo V.12 using inductive thematic analysis. Routine administrative data from January to March 2018 included details of client referrals, assessments and demographics sourced from referral and assessment forms. Data were analysed in Stata V.12 to estimate the number, origin and focus of onward referrals and whether older adults received follow-up interventions. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately and integrated to produce a map of the service.ResultsNine staff participated in three focus groups and one interview (PHN n=2; OT n=4; PT n=3). 85 assessments were completed at five clinics (female n=69, 81.2%, average age 77). The average number of risk factors was 5.4 out of a maximum of 10. Following assessment, clients received an average of three onward referrals. Only one-third of referrals (n=135/201, 33%) had data available on intervention receipt. Primary care staff identified variations in how formally onward referrals were managed and barriers, including a lack of client information, inappropriate referral and a lack of data management support.ConclusionChallenges to onward referral manifest early in an integrated care pathway, such as clients with multiple risk factors sent for initial assessment and the lack of an integrated IT system to share information across settings.

ObjectivesDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) uptake is suboptimal in many countries with limited evidence available on interventions to enhance DRS uptake in primary care. We investigated the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve uptake of Ireland’s national DRS programme, Diabetic RetinaScreen, among patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.Design/settingWe conducted a cluster randomised pilot trial, embedded process evaluation and cost analysis in general practice, July 2019 to January 2020.ParticipantsEight practices participated in the trial. For the process evaluation, surveys were conducted with 25 staff at intervention practices. Interviews were conducted with nine staff at intervention practices, and 10 patients who received the intervention.InterventionsThe intervention comprised practice reimbursement, an audit of attendance, electronic prompts targeting professionals, General Practice-endorsed patient reminders and a patient information leaflet. Practices were randomly allocated to intervention (n=4) or wait-list control (n=4) (usual care).OutcomesStaff and patient interviews explored their perspectives on the intervention. Patient registration and attendance, including intention to attend, were measured at baseline and 6 months. Microcosting was used to estimate intervention delivery cost.ResultsThe process evaluation identified that enablers of feasibility included practice culture and capacity to protect time, systems to organise care, and staff skills, and workarounds to improve intervention ‘fit’. At 6 months, 22/71 (31%) of baseline non-attenders in intervention practices subsequently attended screening compared with 15/87 (17%) in control practices. The total delivery cost across intervention practices (patients=363) was €2509, averaging €627 per practice and €6.91 per audited patient. Continuation criteria supported proceeding to a definitive trial.ConclusionsThe Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance intervention is feasible in primary care; however, consideration should be given to how best to facilitate local tailoring. A definitive trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness is required with preliminary results suggesting a positive effect on uptake.Trial registration numberNCT03901898.

Background The application of economic analysis within implementation science is still developing and the cost of intervention development, which differs markedly from the costs of initial implementation and maintenance, is often overlooked. Our aim was to retrospectively cost the development of a multifaceted intervention in primary care to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening. Methods A retrospective micro costing of developing the intervention from the research funder perspective was conducted. It was based on a systematic intervention development process involving analysis of existing audit data and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), conducting consensus meetings with patients and HCPs, and using these data together with a rapid review of the effectiveness of interventions, to inform the final intervention. Both direct (non-personnel, e.g. travel, stationary, room hire) and indirect (personnel) costs were included. Data sources included researcher time logs, payroll data, salary scales, an online financial management system, invoices and purchase orders. Personnel involved in the intervention development were consulted to determine the activities they conducted and the duration of their involvement. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope. Results The total cost of intervention development (July 2014–January 2019) was €40,485 of which 78% were indirect (personnel) costs (€31,451). In total, personnel contributed 1368 h to intervention development. Highest cost activities were the patient interviews, and consensus process, contributing 23% and 34% of the total cost. Varying estimated time spent on intervention development activities by + 10% increased total intervention development cost by 6% to €42,982. Conclusions Our results highlight that intervention development requires a significant amount of human capital input, combining research experience, patient and public experience, and expert knowledge in relevant fields. The time committed to intervention development is critical but has a significant opportunity cost. With limited resources for research on developing and implementing interventions, capturing intervention development costs and incorporating them as part of assessment of cost-effective interventions, could inform research priority and resource allocation decisions.