Richard Thomson’s research while affiliated with Newcastle University and other places

Background Despite policy prominence and frameworks focusing on health inequalities, healthcare leaders do not feel they have the skills and knowledge to reduce health inequalities. This comparative case study explored four areas in England to examine how local health systems are addressing health inequalities and what ‘good’ practice might look like. Methods Interviews were held with 46 people working in health care services across the NHS, local authority or voluntary, community, social enterprise sectors. Key documents (n = ~ 10) in each of the four areas relating to reducing health inequalities were analysed using documentary analysis methods. Interviews and documents were coded and analysed independently before being integrated to synthesise findings. Analysis was conducted using a two-stage approach - firstly, an inductive analysis of emergent themes; secondly, to build knowledge on each case study’s’ system approach of reduction of health inequalities, principles of the Action Scales Model were used. Results Nineteen themes were identified across the four case studies; some themes were not apparent in all the case studies, nor in either the documentary analysis or interviews. These themes allowed us to compare between cases to explore what might be contributing to good practice. Themes identified included: understanding the local context; facilitators of how to tackle health inequalities and improve health and wellbeing; and future concerns. The secondary analysis highlighted potential levers for action from each case study; these included optimising retention and recruitment of workforce and allowing time and resources for longer-term planning. Two case study areas which appeared to have system resilience, demonstrated having a shared vision, strong partnerships, understanding of the system, and putting people and communities at the heart of decision making. Conclusion This comparative case study makes a unique contribution in the examination of how health systems are addressing health inequalities in their local areas. The combined interview and documentary analysis findings provide rich insights of local systems’ documented strategies, plans and what is happening ‘on the ground’.

Background: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. Objectives: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. Search methods: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. Selection criteria: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main results: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. Authors' conclusions: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Introduction Shared decision making (SDM) refers to patients and health care professionals working together to reach a decision about treatment/care. In abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment options are influenced by patients’ clinical characteristics, their preferences, and potential trade-offs between alternative interventions. This is a prime example of where SDM is essential to ensure the right decision is made for the right patient, yet we have little understanding of what happens in practice. This study explored patient experiences to understand SDM practice in AAA surgery. Methods We used a qualitative approach to describe, and identify improvements to, current treatment decision making in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. Two groups of patients were interviewed: those at the point of discussing treatment options (with corresponding digitally recorded consultation data) and following surgical intervention from one hospital. Framework analysis was used. Results Fifteen patients were interviewed, seven at the point of discussing treatment options and eight following surgical intervention. Timing, format and sources of information, verbal framing of interventions and level of patient engagement were key themes. Four areas for improvement were identified: earlier provision and more detailed written information along with signposting to quality on-line information; both intervention options, risks, benefits, and consequences, were not always discussed; some clinicians were somewhat directive in the decision-making process; and patients’ treatment values/preferences were not explored–the only example was in one of the eight recorded consultations. Patients could feel overwhelmed by the information and decision and fearful of the impending surgery. Conclusions More emphasis should be placed on the provision of full information and the exploration of patient values and preferences for treatment. Clinician training and support for patients, including decision aids, could facilitate the decision-making process. Providing written information earlier and guidance on reliable on-line resources would benefits patients and their families.

Background Person-centred care (PCC) involves placing people at the centre of their healthcare decision making to ensure it meets their needs, values, and personal circumstances. Increasingly, PCC is promoted in healthcare policy and guidance, but little is known about how this is embedded in postgraduate medical training. The aim of this research was to understand how PCC is embedded in UK postgraduate medical training and explore factors influencing inclusion of PCC in curricula content. Methods To explore this, we interviewed senior professionals with key roles in the curricula from four UK Royal Colleges (Psychiatrists; Physicians; Surgeons; and GPs) and used framework analysis on interviews and relevant curricula documents to identify themes. Results Legislation and professional/educational guidance influenced inclusion. PCC definitions and terminology differed and placement within curricula was variable. Royal Colleges defined the curriculum and provided training to ensure competence, but local deaneries independently implemented the curriculum. Trainer engagement was greater than trainee buy in. Quality assurance focused on feedback from trainers and trainees rather than patients, and patient and public involvement in curriculum development, teaching, and assessment was limited. Conclusions There is a need for cross-organisation collaboration to develop a PCC competence framework that defines the skills and level of competence required at different points in training, with clarity around the differences between undergraduate and postgraduate requirements. Greater auditing and quality assurance of programme delivery would help identify successful practices to share within and across Royal Colleges, while still maintaining the flexibility of local provision. Engagement with patients and the public in this work can only strengthen provision.

Background The experience of costly, unplanned care and hospitalisations is not equal across our society; populations living in socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstances where ill-health is more prevalent, experience higher rates. There is a policy, financial and moral imperative to act to address these inequalities and reduce mounting hospital pressures more broadly. Previous systematic reviews have only examined the average effect of healthcare interventions on avoidable hospitalisations, they have not looked at the differential impact of interventions across populations, nor taken a health systems approach and considered the impact of interventions beyond healthcare services on hospitalisations. We aimed to establish which interventions reduce, maintain or increase socioeconomic inequalities in hospitalisations and readmissions. Methods An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Knowledge was conducted January 1, 1999 to Feb 23, 2022, supplemented with full citation searches of included studies, website searches and expert consultation. Empirical studies involving individuals of any age, in Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, published in any language were included. Quantitative studies of interventions across any domain of activity (wider public-policy and population health, health and care service, and integrative interventions) were included provided they reported the differential impact of the intervention on either hospitalisations or readmissions across socioeconomic groups (individual or area-based measure of socio-economic status included). Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool and narrative synthesis conducted with direction of effect plots. Results After removing duplicates, 23,496 titles and abstracts were screened, followed by 502 full texts. 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies used a range of quantitative study designs and over half were from the US. Socioeconomic status was variously measured and reported, study quality was variable, and equity impacts mixed. Effective interventions for reducing socioeconomic inequalities were found across all domains of activity and were characterised as either requiring low personal agency to benefit (being legislative in nature and applied at a population or health system level) or for interventions implemented at an individual level, a vaccine programme or intervention focused on holistic integrative care. Conclusion Evaluating the equity impact of interventions should become more routine; interventions implemented to reduce hospitalisation rates may maintain or increase inequalities, but there are also promising examples of interventions which may reduce inequalities. Whole systems action and investment in non-healthcare activity alongside healthcare intervention is required to improve equity in health and care outcomes.

Background There is strategic objective to incorporate the principles and practice of co‐design into routine service development and improvement. Aim The aim was to explore the concept and feasibility of service co‐design with patients and health professionals with regards to the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer care pathway. Methods and Results Qualitative telephone interviews and face‐to‐face focus groups in one region of England. Twenty patients completed interviews. Nine patients and ten professionals formed two focus groups. Patients were referred through the urgent (two week) GP referral route and were within six months of receiving their first treatment for an UGI cancer. Professionals were working as service planners and providers of the UGI cancer care pathway. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Six themes emerged: Responsibilities and expectations, Knowledge and understanding, Valuing patient input, Building relationships, Environment for co‐design activities, Impact and effectiveness. Based on the themes a checklist has been created to provide practical suggestions for both professionals and patients on approaching co‐design for service improvement. Conclusion This study offers policy and practice partners a clearer understanding of co‐design and factors to consider when approaching co‐design in real life settings.

Objectives To describe how patients are engaged with cancer decisions in the context of multidisciplinary team (MDT) and how MDT recommendations are operationalised in the context of a shared decision. Design Ethnographic qualitative study. Setting Four head and neck cancer centres in the north of England. Participants Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer; non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews, and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members. Methods Ethnographic methods including non-participant observation of MDT meetings and clinic appointments, informal interviews, field notes and formal semistructured interviews with patients and MDT members. Results MDT discussions often conclude with a firm recommendation for treatment. When delivered to a patient in clinic, this recommendation is often accepted by the patient, but this response may result from the disempowered position in which they find themselves. While patient behaviour may thus appear to endorse clinicians’ views that a paternalistic approach is desired by patients (creating a ‘cycle of paternalism’), the rigidity of the MDT treatment recommendation can act as a barrier to discussion of options and the exploration of patient values. Conclusions The current model of MDT decision-making does not support shared decision-making and may actively undermine it. A model should be developed whereby the individual patient perspective has more input into MDT discussions, and where decisions are made on potential treatment options rather than providing a single recommendation for discussion with the patient. Deeper consideration should be given to how the MDT incorporates the patient perspective and/or delivers its discussion of options to the patient. In order to achieve these objectives, a new model of MDT working is required.

Shared decision making has been on the policy agenda in the UK for at least twelve years, but it lacked a comprehensive approach to delivery. That has changed over the past five years, and we can now see significant progress across all aspects of a comprehensive approach, including leadership at policy, professional and patient levels; infrastructure developments, including the provision of training, tools and campaigns; and practice improvements, such as demonstrations, measurement and coordination. All these initiatives were necessary, but the last, central coordination, would appear to be key to success.

Objectives : Develop and pilot implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) decision aids (DAs) for patients considering primary prevention ICDs. Background : Using DAs for preference-sensitive decisions is an evidence-based way to improve patient-centered decisions. Reimbursement mandates have increased the need for DAs in ICD care, although none have been formally evaluated. Methods : Development Phase: An expert panel, including patients and physicians, iteratively developed four DAs: a one-page Option GridTM conversation aid, a four-page in-depth paper tool, a 17-minute video, and an interactive website. Trial Phase : At three sites, patients with heart failure who were eligible for primary prevention ICDs were randomly assigned 2:1 to intervention (received DAs) or control (usual care). We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation exploring acceptability and feasibility. Results : Twenty-one eligible patients enrolled (fifteen intervention). Most intervention participants found the DAs to be unbiased (67%), helpful (89%), and would recommend them to others (100%). The pilot was feasible at all sites; however, using clinic staff to identify eligible patients was more efficient than chart review. Although the main goals were to measure acceptability and feasibility, intervention participants trended towards increased concordance between longevity values and ICD decisions (71% concordant vs. 29%, p = 0.06). Participants preferred the in-depth paper tool and video DAs. Access to a nurse during the decision-making window encouraged questions and improved participant-perceived confidence. Conclusions : Participants felt the DAs provided helpful, balanced information that they would recommend to other patients. Further exploration of this larger context of DA use and strategies to promote independent use related to electrophysiology visits are needed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved