Upskilling health and care workers with augmented and virtual reality: protocol for a realist review to develop an evidence-informed programme theory

IntroductionAugmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are increasingly used to upskill health and care providers, including in surgical, nursing and acute care settings. Many studies have used AR/VR to deliver training, providing mixed evidence on their effectiveness and limited evidence regarding contextual factors that influence effectiveness and implementation. This review will develop, test and refine an evidence-informed programme theory on what facilitates or constrains the implementation of AR or VR programmes in health and care settings and understand how, for whom and to what extent they ‘work’.Methods and analysisThis realist review adheres to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) standards and will be conducted in three steps: theory elicitation, theory testing and theory refinement. First, a search will identify practitioner, academic and learning and technology adoption theories from databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO and Web of Science), practitioner journals, snowballing and grey literature. Information regarding contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be extracted. A narrative synthesis will determine overlapping configurations and form an initial theory. Second, the theory will be tested using empirical evidence located from the above databases and identified from the first search. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and relevant information will be extracted into a coding sheet. Third, the extracted information will be compared with the initial programme theory, with differences helping to make refinements. Findings will be presented as a narrative summary, and the MMAT will determine our confidence in each configuration.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. This review will develop an evidence-informed programme theory. The results will inform and support AR/VR interventions from clinical educators, healthcare providers and software developers. Upskilling through AR/VR learning interventions may improve quality of care and promote evidence-based practice and continued learning. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Download Full-text

Contexts and mechanisms that promote access to healthcare for populations experiencing homelessness: a realist review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043091 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e043091

Author(s):

Rikke Siersbaek ◽

John Alexander Ford ◽

Sara Burke ◽

Clíona Ní Cheallaigh ◽

Steve Thomas

Keyword(s):

Health System ◽

Healthcare Access ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Realist Review ◽

Access To Healthcare ◽

Staff Retention ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Ovid Medline ◽

High Level

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify and understand the health system contexts and mechanisms that allow for homeless populations to access appropriate healthcare when needed.DesignA realist review.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, embase.com, CINAHL, ASSIA and grey literature until April 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesThe purpose of the review was to identify health system patterns which enable access to healthcare for people who experience homelessness. Peer-reviewed articles were identified through a systematic search, grey literature search, citation tracking and expert recommendations. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for rigour and relevance and coded to identify data relating to contexts, mechanisms and/or outcomes.AnalysisInductive and deductive coding was used to generate context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which were refined and then used to build several iterations of the overarching programme theory.ResultsSystematic searching identified 330 review articles, of which 24 were included. An additional 11 grey literature and primary sources were identified through citation tracking and expert recommendation. Additional purposive searching of grey literature yielded 50 records, of which 12 were included, for a total of 47 included sources. The analysis found that healthcare access for populations experiencing homelessness is improved when services are coordinated and delivered in a way that is organised around the person with a high degree of flexibility and a culture that rejects stigma, generating trusting relationships between patients and staff/practitioners. Health systems should provide long-term, dependable funding for services to ensure sustainability and staff retention.ConclusionsWith homelessness on the rise internationally, healthcare systems should focus on high-level factors such as funding stability, building inclusive cultures and setting goals which encourage and support staff to provide flexible, timely and connected services to improve access.

Download Full-text

Conversations about FGM in primary care: a realist review on how, why and under what circumstances FGM is discussed in general practice consultations

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039809 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. e039809

Author(s):

Sharon Dixon ◽

Claire Duddy ◽

Gabrielle Harrison ◽

Chrysanthi Papoutsi ◽

Sue Ziebland ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Relevant Literature ◽

Theory Development ◽

Realist Review ◽

Primary Outcome Measure ◽

Mandatory Reporting ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Genital Mutilation ◽

The Impact

ObjectivesLittle is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients.SettingPrimary care in England.Data sourcesRealist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients.Primary outcome measureThis realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated.Results124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations.ConclusionsThere is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities’ health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091996.

Download Full-text

Contexts and mechanisms that promote access to healthcare for populations experiencing homelessness: a realist review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-79236/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rikke Siersbaek ◽

John Ford ◽

Sara Burke ◽

Clíona Ní Cheallaigh ◽

Steve Thomas

Keyword(s):

Health System ◽

Health Systems ◽

Healthcare Access ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Realist Review ◽

Access To Healthcare ◽

Staff Retention ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Eligibility Criteria

Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to identify and understand the health system contexts and mechanisms that allow for homeless populations to access appropriate healthcare when needed.Design: A realist review.Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, embase.com, CINAHL, ASSIA and grey literature until April 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: The purpose of the review was to identify health system patterns which enable access to healthcare for people who experience homelessness. Peer reviewed articles were first identified through a systematic search, grey literature searching, citation tracking and expert recommendations. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for rigour and relevance and coded to identify data relating to contexts, mechanisms and/or outcomes.Analysis: Inductive coding was used to generate Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations which were refined and then used to build several iterations of the overarching programme theory.Results: Searching identified 330 review articles, of which 24 were included. Additional searching of grey literature yielded 50 records of which 12 were included. An additional 11 grey literature and primary sources were identified through citation tracking and expert recommendation for a total of 47 included sources. The analysis found that healthcare access for populations experiencing homelessness is improved when services are coordinated and delivered in a way that is organised around the person with a high degree of flexibility and a culture that rejects stigma generating trusting relationships between patients and staff/providers. Health systems should provide long-term, dependable funding for services to ensure sustainability and staff retention. Conclusions: With homelessness on the rise internationally, this study will inform health systems policy-making and implementation. It contributes to our understanding how healthcare systems can be more accessible for populations experiencing homelessness by providing long-term stable funding, promoting inclusive cultures and limiting stigma. Health systems should be flexible, timely and connected.

Download Full-text

Caregiver-mediated interventions to support self-regulation among infants and young children (0–5 years): a protocol for a realist review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046078 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e046078

Author(s):

Amy Finlay-Jones ◽

Jetro Emanel Ang ◽

Elaine Bennett ◽

Jenny Downs ◽

Sally Kendall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

School Readiness ◽

Working Group ◽

Protective Factor ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Self Regulation ◽

Realist Review ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Review Team ◽

The Impact

IntroductionSelf-regulation is a modifiable protective factor for lifespan mental and physical health outcomes. Early caregiver-mediated interventions to promote infant and child regulatory outcomes prevent long-term developmental, emotional and behavioural difficulties and improve outcomes such as school readiness, educational achievement and economic success. To harness the population health promise of these programmes, there is a need for more nuanced understanding of the impact of these interventions. The aim of this realist review is to understand how, why, under which circumstances and for whom, early caregiver-mediated interventions improve infant and child self-regulation. The research questions guiding this review were based on consultation with families and community organisations that provide early childhood and family services.Methods and analysisRealist reviews take a theory-driven and iterative approach to evidence synthesis, structured around continuous refinement of a programme theory. Programme theories specify context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain what works, for whom, under which circumstances and how. Our initial programme theory is based on prior work in this field and will be refined through the review process. A working group, comprising service users, community organisation representatives, representatives from specific populations, clinicians and review team members will guide the evidence synthesis and interpretation, as well as the development and dissemination of recommendations based on the findings of the review. The review will involve searching: (i) electronic databases, (ii) connected papers, articles and citations and (iii) grey literature. Decisions to include evidence will be guided by judgements about their contribution to the programme theory and will be made by the research team, with input from the working group. Evidence synthesis will be reported using the Realist and MEta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a review. Findings will be disseminated to our working group and through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Review registration numberThe protocol is registered with Open Science Framework https://osf.io/5ce2z/registrations.

Download Full-text

Remediating doctors’ performance to restore patient safety: a realist review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025943 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. e025943 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Tristan Price ◽

Nicola Brennan ◽

Jennifer Cleland ◽

Linda Prescott-Clements ◽

Amanda Wanner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Safety ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Realist Review ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Stakeholder Group ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Dissemination Strategy ◽

Knowledge To Action ◽

Patient Representatives

IntroductionUnderperformance by doctors poses a risk to patient safety. Remediation is an intervention designed to remedy underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Remediation is widely used across healthcare systems globally, and has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention. Yet, there is a poor evidence base to inform remediation programmes. In particular, there is a lack of understanding as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor’s practice. The aim of this research is to identify why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to support patient safety.Methods and analysisRealist review is an approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention works to produce its effects. The initial search strategy will involve: database and grey literature searching, citation searching and contacting authors. The evidence search will be extended as the review progresses and becomes more focused on the development of specific aspects of the programme theory. The development of the programme theory will involve input from a stakeholder group consisting of professional experts in the remediation process and patient representatives. Evidence synthesis will use a realist logic of analysis to interrogate data in order to develop and refine the initial programme theory into a more definitive realist programme theory of how remediation works. The study will follow and be reported according to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses—Evolving Standards (RAMESES).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Our dissemination strategy will include input from our stakeholder group. Customised outputs will be developed using the knowledge-to-action cycle framework, and will be targeted to: policy-makers; education providers and regulators, the National Health Service, doctors and academics.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088779.

Download Full-text

21 Realist Review of General Practitioners’ Role in Advancing Practice in Care Homes (Grape Study)

Age and Ageing ◽

10.1093/ageing/afab028.21 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. i1-i6

Author(s):

N H Chadborn ◽

A L Gordon ◽

R Devi ◽

C Williams ◽

C Goodman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resource Constraints ◽

Care Home ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Realist Review ◽

Healthcare Services ◽

Care Quality ◽

Leadership Role ◽

Care Homes ◽

Healthcare Team ◽

Programme Theory

Abstract Introduction Many care home residents have high levels of complex needs and their medical care is the responsibility of the general practitioner (GP) in UK. GPs have multiple roles, including gatekeeper for access to other healthcare services and often play a leadership role in the healthcare team. Our aim is to develop realist programme theories for how GPs interact with care homes to facilitate improvements in care of residents. Method Using realist review we aimed to describe “what works” for GPs to be involved in improvements in care of residents. Firstly we carried out a scoping review of UK literature and interviewed GP leaders in order to build programme theory. Secondly iterative literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, ASSIA, Scopus and many grey literature databases. This international literature is being used to test and refine programme theories and to explore the range of contexts. Results A scoping search identified a small number (n = 5) of recent UK articles (2010–19) that described GP input into quality improvement. To gain insight into context, observational studies (n = 4 in UK and Ireland) were identified which described concerns about workload and resource constraints. To develop initial programme theories, we conducted interviews with 6 GP leaders, where themes of risk and specialism were identified. We are developing the following mechanisms within programme theory: where GP profession have an ownership of the agenda, this encourages GP involvement. In other initiatives, the mechanism may be a trusting relationship between GP and another practitioner, eg pharmacist. Conclusion Many reported projects which aim to improve care quality in care homes do not describe how the initiative relates to GP practice. We have identified mechanisms which, when present, may cause GPs to contribute leadership and medical expertise, and thus lead to successful outcomes for residents.

Download Full-text

Healthcare Providers’ Implementation of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in Practice: A Protocol for a Mixed Method Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-89904/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Angela C Wolff ◽

Andrea Dresselhuis ◽

Samar Hejazi ◽

Duncan Dixon ◽

Deborah Gibson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mixed Method ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Influential Factors ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about strategies for implementing individual-level PROMs and PREMs data by healthcare providers in their everyday practice.Methods: This mixed method systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases with limiters of English from 2009 to 2019. Study selection criteria includes implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs Implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. Discussion: Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centred approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO protocol registration number (42013005938).

Download Full-text

Healthcare Providers’ Implementation of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in Practice A Protocol for a Mixed Method Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-89904/v2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Angela C Wolff ◽

Andrea Dresselhuis ◽

Samar Hejazi ◽

Duncan Dixon ◽

Deborah Gibson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mixed Method ◽

Point Of Care ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Influential Factors ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about strategies for implementing individual-level PROMs and PREMs data by healthcare providers in their everyday practice.Methods: This mixed method systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases with limiters of English from 2009 to 2019. Study selection criteria includes implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. Discussion: Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centred approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020182904

Download Full-text

The Informed Consent Process in Health Research with Under-served Populations: A Realist Review Protocol.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-72276/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Eleanor Hoverd ◽

Sophie Staniszewska ◽

Jeremy Dale

Keyword(s):

Informed Consent ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Health Research ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Stakeholder Involvement ◽

Realist Review ◽

Informed Consent Process ◽

Consent Process ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Diversity And Inclusion

Abstract BackgroundThe informed consent process aims to provide potential participants with information about health research that enables them to make an informed decision as to whether they choose to participate, or not. However, it remains unclear as to whether the process is effective for those whom are under-served in health research. It is a pivotal issue within health research that the diversity of people who participate is broadened. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) pledges to support equality, diversity and inclusion, actively creating opportunities for all citizens whom are eligible, to take part in health research. MethodsIn order to understand how the informed consent process for under-served populations in health research works, under what circumstances and in what respects, a realist review approach will be undertaken. Searches will be carried out using electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsychInfo), along with selected websites and grey literature. Development of initial rough programme theory (ies) will lead to a more refined programme theory that will provide an explanation of context, mechanism and outcomes. Stakeholder involvement by NIHR (Public) Research Champions, health professionals and clinical academics will provide expert opinion about concepts and programme theory.DiscussionFindings of this realist review will highlight how the informed consent process in health research affects the experience and decision-making process of potential participants from under-served populations. They will be written up in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and disseminated to patients and the public, health researchers, health professionals and policymakers through peer-reviewed publication, presentations and discussions. The review will contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms that trigger both positive and negative outcomes in the informed consent process for those whom are often under-represented in health research to inform policy, study design and delivery.

Download Full-text

The informed consent process in health research with under-served populations: a realist review protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01652-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eleanor Hoverd ◽

Sophie Staniszewska ◽

Jeremy Dale

Keyword(s):

Informed Consent ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Health Research ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Stakeholder Involvement ◽

Realist Review ◽

Informed Consent Process ◽

Consent Process ◽

Programme Theory ◽

Diversity And Inclusion

Abstract Background The informed consent process aims to provide potential participants with information about health research that enables them to make an informed decision as to whether they choose to participate, or not. However, it remains unclear as to whether the process is effective for those who are under-served in health research. It is a pivotal issue within health research that the diversity of people who participate is broadened. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) pledges to support equality, diversity and inclusion, actively creating opportunities for all citizens whom are eligible, to take part in health research. Methods In order to understand how the informed consent process for under-served populations in health research works, under what circumstances and in what respects, a realist review approach will be undertaken. Searches will be carried out using electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO), along with selected websites and grey literature. Development of initial rough programme theory(ies) will lead to a more refined programme theory that will provide an explanation of context, mechanism and outcomes. Stakeholder involvement by NIHR (Public) Research Champions, health professionals and clinical academics will provide expert opinion about concepts and programme theory. Discussion Findings of this realist review will highlight how the informed consent process in health research affects the experience and decision-making process of potential participants from under-served populations. They will be written up in accordance with RAMESES guidelines and disseminated to patients and the public, health researchers, health professionals and policymakers through peer-reviewed publication, presentations and discussions. The review will contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms that cause both positive and negative outcomes in the informed consent process for those whom are often under-represented in health research to inform policy, study design and delivery.

Download Full-text