Factors influencing general practice nurse's implementation of culturally responsive care, using normalization process theory: A cross-sectional study

AIMS

To explore levers and barriers to providing culturally responsive care for general practice nurses (GPNs) using normalization process theory.

DESIGN

A self-administered online cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

A participatory co-designed adapted version of the normalization of complex interventions measure (NoMAD) validated tool was distributed to a convenience sample of GPNs between December 2022 and February 2023. The sample comprised of GPNs working in general practice services in Ireland (n = 122). Data were analysed using descriptive and analytical statistics (Pearson correlations) and principles of content analysis. This study was conducted and reported in line with the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).

RESULTS

GPNs in this study indicated their familiarity with, acknowledged the importance of and were committed to, providing culturally responsive care. However, implementing culturally responsive care in daily practice was problematic due to insufficient education and training, scarcity of resources and supports and a lack of organizational leadership. Subsequently, GPNs experience difficulties adapting everyday practices to respond appropriately to the care needs of culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) patients.

CONCLUSION

This analysis highlights the necessity of exploring the intricacies of factors that influence capabilities and capacity for providing culturally responsive care. Despite demonstrating awareness of the importance of providing nursing care that responds to the needs of CaLD patients, GPNs do not have full confidence or capacity to integrate culturally responsive care into their daily work practices.

IMPACT

Using normalization process theory, this study elucidates for the first time how GPNs in Ireland make sense of, legitimize, enact and sustain culturally responsive care as a routine way of working. It illuminates the multitude of micro-level (individual), meso-level (organizational) and macro-level (structural) factors that require attention for normalizing culturally responsive care in general practice services.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The study question was identified in a participatory research prioritization for Irish research about migrant health that involved migrants in the process.

Time to re-envisage culturally responsive care: Intersection of participatory health research and implementation science

AIM

In the context of widening societal diversity, culturally and linguistically diverse patients continue to experience inequities in healthcare access and deficiencies in standards of nursing care. Re-framing culturally responsive care as a complex intervention spanning multiple interacting factors at micro, meso and macro levels is an essential prerequisite for addressing knowledge translation gaps into everyday nursing practice. To this end, this paper proposes and explicates the potential of applying synergistic participatory implementation methodologies for developing effective implementation strategies with impact at individual and wider structural levels.

DESIGN

Discussion Paper.

DATA SOURCES

A co-design case study is presented as an example of combining normalization process theory and participatory learning and action to investigate and support the implementation of culturally responsive care in general practice nursing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Enacting culturally responsive health care is inherently complex in that it is influenced by multiple interacting factors. Viewing culturally responsive care as a complex intervention and incorporating a synergistic participatory implementation science approach offers possibilities for addressing the documented shortcomings in the implementation of culturally responsive nursing care.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to move away from conventional approaches to conceptualizing and generating evidence on culturally responsive care. Incorporating participatory implementation methodologies can provide a new lens to investigate and support whole system implementation strategies.

IMPACT

The combination of participatory and implementation methodologies is both theoretically and empirically informed. Engaging stakeholders in the co-design and co-production of evidence and solutions to long standing problems has the potential to increase the likelihood of influencing iterative and sustainable implementation and changes to clinical practice and systems.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This work is part of a wider programme of participatory health research on migrant health, partnering with a non-governmental organization that supports migrants.

Identifying Key Barriers for Radiation Oncology Financial Advocacy Programs

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Financial toxicity is a devastating outcome for patients with cancer and can impact their treatment adherence and health outcomes. One survey reveals that most radiation oncologists are "very concerned" with the negative impact treatment-related costs have on patients, and another survey found that more than 20 percent of patients experience financial toxicity related to their radiation therapy treatment. Financial advocates within cancer programs and practices can help mitigate patients' financial toxicity by supporting shared decision-making and helping with treatment cost planning. In 2022, ACCC set out to explore how financial advocates in radiation oncology provide financial navigation to patients with cancer and address the challenges they may face. Identify barriers to financial toxicity mitigation and treatment access challenges for patients with cancer undergoing radiation therapy.

MATERIALS/METHODS

ACCC worked with an expert multidisciplinary Financial Advocacy Network Advisory Committee to conduct two, semi-structured discussion sessions on financial advocacy in radiation oncology. Prepared discussion topics included challenges and opportunities in delivering financial advocacy services, financial barriers to care and strategies to mitigate financial toxicity, and processes for prior authorizations and claim denials in the radiation oncology setting.

RESULTS

Twenty-one participants attended the first session, and 17 participants attended the second session. Participants included financial navigators and counselors, oncology social workers, nurse navigators, and cancer program or practice administrators. Three major challenges emerged from both sessions: (1) Inadequate financial assistance from independent, charitable foundations to help pay for patients' deductibles, additional radiation treatment out-of-pocket costs, and care-related transportation costs. (2) Lack of best practices to handle prior authorization and avoid denials. (3) Lack of preparedness for changes imposed by the Radiation Oncology (RO) Model, which would impact care planning.

CONCLUSION

Many cancer programs and practices have implemented financial advocacy services but remain restricted in the available assistance for radiation therapy patients. Radiation therapy represents a significant component of anti-cancer treatment and addressing the lack of financial support for patients is critical to improving patients' treatment adherence and health outcomes. Payment policies must be reformed to address complex prior authorization requirements and patients would benefit from greater financial support for radiation treatment and costs of wrap-around supportive services.

Long-term prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks with lanadelumab: The HELP OLE Study

Background

The aim was to evaluate long‐term effectiveness and safety of lanadelumab in patients ≥12 y old with hereditary angioedema (HAE) 1/2 (NCT02741596).

Methods

Rollover patients completing the HELP Study and continuing into HELP OLE received one lanadelumab 300 mg dose until first attack (dose‐and‐wait period), then 300 mg q2wks (regular dosing stage). Nonrollovers (newly enrolled) received lanadelumab 300 mg q2wks from day 0. Baseline attack rate for rollovers: ≥1 attack/4 weeks (based on run‐in period attack rate during HELP Study); for nonrollovers: historical attack rate ≥1 attack/12 weeks. The planned treatment period was 33 months.

Results

212 patients participated (109 rollovers, 103 nonrollovers); 81.6% completed ≥30 months on study (mean [SD], 29.6 [8.2] months). Lanadelumab markedly reduced mean HAE attack rate (reduction vs baseline: 87.4% overall). Patients were attack free for a mean of 97.7% of days during treatment; 81.8% and 68.9% of patients were attack free for ≥6 and ≥12 months, respectively. Angioedema Quality‐of‐Life total and domain scores improved from day 0 to end of study. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (excluding HAE attacks) were reported by 97.2% of patients; most commonly injection site pain (47.2%) and viral upper respiratory tract infection (42.0%). Treatment‐related TEAEs were reported by 54.7% of patients. Most injection site reactions resolved within 1 hour (70.2%) or 1 day (92.6%). Six (2.8%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs. No treatment‐related serious TEAEs or deaths were reported. Eleven treatment‐related TEAEs of special interest were reported by seven (3.3%) patients.

Conclusion

Lanadelumab demonstrated sustained efficacy and acceptable tolerability with long‐term use in HAE patients.

University students' understanding and options of eating disorders: A qualitative study

Background

Eating disorders (EDs) affect 1.25 million people in the UK. Evidence suggests the public perceive EDs as a female issue and display stigma and poor mental health literacy (MHL) towards EDs. There is a high prevalence of EDs in university populations, so it is important to determine the MHL of this at-risk group. Qualitative research exploring the MHL of this population is incomplete.

Aims

To explore university students' beliefs and opinions of EDs, their knowledge of symptoms, treatment and help sources and how these are influenced by biological sex.

Methods

A qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews with seven male and seven female participants. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Analyst triangulation and member validation occurred.

Results

Analysis revealed six themes, each with subthemes: ED characteristics, causes, body image, seeking help, stigma and awareness. Students displayed poor awareness towards ED signs and symptoms, causes and help sources. Students were not stigmatising towards EDs, but many perceived them as a female problem and believed society to be stigmatising. Many referenced informal sources of information such as social media and expressed a desire for ED teaching. Sex did not have a significant influence on knowledge or opinions of EDs in this study, however there were some differences, for example some males were more likely to see EDs as a weakness and to perceive themselves as having low levels of knowledge.

Conclusions

University students show poor awareness of certain aspects of ED-MHL including help sources and symptom recognition. Although students were not stigmatising of EDs themselves, many perceived high levels of public stigma. This, alongside poor knowledge, may delay help-seeking. Campaigns educating students and the public about EDs would aid earlier diagnosis, improving long-term outcomes. Further research into awareness and knowledge in other populations would be beneficial.

Key messages

University students interviewed perceived high levels of public stigma around eating disorders, although not stimatising themselves. Campaigns educating students and the public about EDs would aid earlier diagnosis, improving long-term outcomes.

Evaluation of avoralstat, an oral kallikrein inhibitor, in a Phase 3 hereditary angioedema prophylaxis trial: The OPuS-2 study

Background

Effective inhibition of plasma kallikrein may have significant benefits for patients with hereditary angioedema due to deficiency of C1 inhibitor (C1‐INH‐HAE) by reducing the frequency of angioedema attacks. Avoralstat is a small molecule inhibitor of plasma kallikrein. This study (OPuS‐2) evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic avoralstat 300 or 500 mg compared with placebo.

Methods

OPuS‐2 was a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study. Subjects were administered avoralstat 300 mg, avoralstat 500 mg, or placebo orally 3 times per day for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the angioedema attack rate based on adjudicator‐confirmed attacks.

Results

A total of 110 subjects were randomized and dosed. The least squares (LS) mean attack rates per week were 0.589, 0.675, and 0.593 for subjects receiving avoralstat 500 mg, avoralstat 300 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1 subject in each of the avoralstat groups and no subjects in the placebo group were attack‐free during the 84‐day treatment period. The LS mean duration of all confirmed attacks was 25.4, 29.4, and 31.4 hours for the avoralstat 500 mg, avoralstat 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Using the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE‐QoL), improved QoL was observed for the avoralstat 500 mg group compared with placebo. Avoralstat was generally safe and well tolerated.

Conclusions

Although this study did not demonstrate efficacy of avoralstat in preventing angioedema attacks in C1‐INH‐HAE, it provided evidence of shortened angioedema episodes and improved QoL in the avoralstat 500 mg treatment group compared with placebo.