Expanding the meaning of 'being a peer leader': qualitative findings from a Canadian community-based cervical and breast cancer screening programme

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Emotions and lung cancer screening: Prioritising a humanistic approach to care

Low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening has mortality benefits. Yet, uptake has been low. To inform strategies to better deliver and promote screening, in 2018, we interviewed 27 long-term smokers immediately following lung cancer screening in Australia, prior to receiving scan results. Existing lung screening studies employ the Health Belief Model. Reflecting growing acknowledgement of the centrality of emotions to screening uptake, we draw on psychological and sociological theories on emotions to thematically and abductively analyse the emotional dimensions of lung cancer screening, with implications for screening promotion and delivery. As smokers, interviewees described feeling stigmatised, with female participants internalising and male participants resisting stigma. Guilt and fear related to lung cancer were described as screening motivators. The screening itself elicited mild positive emotions. Notably, interviewees expressed gratitude for the care implicitly shown through lung screening to smokers. More than individual risk assessment, findings suggest lung screening campaigns should prioritise emotions. Peer workers have been found to increase cancer screening uptake in marginalised communities, however the risk to confidentiality-especially for female smokers-limits its feasibility in lung cancer screening. Instead, we suggest involving peer consultants in developing targeted screening strategies that foreground emotions. Furthermore, findings suggest prioritising humanistic care in lung screening delivery. Such an approach may be especially important for smokers from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who perceive lung cancer screening and smoking as sources of stigma and face a higher risk of dying from lung cancer and lower engagement with screening.

A qualitative exploration of women's perspectives and acceptability of including new cancer awareness information in all-clear breast or cervical screening results

Objective

This study explored women's perspectives on the acceptability of including new cancer information with an all‐clear breast or cervical screening result letter (using ovarian cancer as a case study).

Methods

In 2016, six focus group discussions were conducted with women aged 25–70 years old, eligible for invitation to the NHS breast or cervical screening programme and resident in England. The focus groups lasted 60–90 min and were held in community venues. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Thirty‐eight women aged 25–67 years old participated in the focus groups. Data analysis yielded six descriptive themes: general cancer awareness, taking advantage of a ‘teachable moment’, a double‐edge sword, barriers to accepting and using new cancer information, motivators for accepting and using new cancer information and wider strategies to increase cancer awareness in women. Women welcomed the inclusion of new cancer information in all‐clear screening results but highlighted pertinent lessons to be considered to maximise the usefulness of the approach.

Conclusion

While women perceived this approach as acceptable, it is pertinent to note the potential of the new cancer information to stimulate anxiety and potentially widen inequalities by excluding non‐attenders at screening programmes. Specific complementary and tailored approaches are necessary to mitigate these limitations.

Examining aspects of successful community-based programs promoting cancer screening uptake to reduce cancer health disparity: A systematic review

Certain minorities in the US are disproportionately burdened with higher cancer incidence and mortality rates. Programs encouraging timely uptake of cancer screening measures serve to reduce cancer health disparities. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the effectiveness and the qualities of these programs, and to elucidate characteristics of success programs to aid in designing of future ones. We focused on community-based programs rather than clinic-based programs as the former are more likely to reach disadvantaged populations, and on prevention programs for breast, cervical, and/or colon cancers as longstanding screening recommendations for these cancers exist. PubMed, CINAHL and EBSCO databases were searched for articles that utilized community organizations and community health workers. Fourteen programs described in 34 manuscripts were identified. While 10 of 14 programs reported statistically significant increases in cancer prevention knowledge and/or increase in screening rates, only 7 of them enrolled large numbers of participants (defined as ≥1000). Only 7 programs had control groups, only 4 programs independently verified screening uptake, and 2 programs had long-term follow-up (defined as more than one screening cycle). Only one program demonstrated elimination of cancer health disparity at a population level. While most community-based cancer prevention programs have demonstrated efficacy in terms of increased knowledge and/or screening uptake, scalability and demonstration in reduction at a population level remain a challenge.

The Peer Experience for Older People Encouraging Other Older People to Engage in Resistance Training: A Qualitative Study

Resistance training (RT) can maintain and improve physical and mental health in older adults, but this population has low levels of RT participation. Linking older people participating in RT (i.e., peers) with those who have not may promote and maintain adherence. This qualitative study explored the experience of peers in encouraging RT participation among older adults. Data were collected using focus groups, researcher observations, and semistructured interviews. Thematic analysis was conducted. Older people (n = 8) who engaged in RT prior to recruitment, participated as peers. Each provided peer support for between one and four RT participants for 6 weeks. The peer role was perceived by peers as potentially leading to a relationship which benefitted both parties. Peers reported that helping and supporting others was a positive experience and raised their self-efficacy. Difficulty initiating contact and differing expectations of peers and RT participants were viewed as challenges. Peer mentoring could help promote RT participation among older adults.

The acceptability and feasibility of lay-health led interventions for the prevention and early detection of cancer

BACKGROUND

US-based evidence suggests that lay-health worker (LHW) interventions can increase awareness around cancer risk-related lifestyles, symptom recognition, and screening programme uptake. The suitability of LHW interventions in the UK and the potential barriers and facilitators for implementation is currently unknown. This study explored the acceptability and feasibility of developing LHW interventions for cancer prevention, screening, and early diagnosis.

METHODS

Purposive sampling recruited 5 separate lay groups: (1) completed cancer treatment; (2) friends/family of cancer patients; (3) cancer hospital volunteers; (4) cancer charity volunteers; and (5) members of the public. Audio-recorded focus groups and semi-structured interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis using framework matrices.

RESULTS

Forty-one people (66% female, aged 23-84 years) participated. Three main themes are reported: (1) scope of LHW roles, with a clear remit embedded within communities or primary care practices; (2) defining LHW tasks, with a focus on supporting people overcome barriers including lack of cancer symptom knowledge and non-attendance at screening; and (3) clear boundaries, with LHW training and on-going support from healthcare staff seen as key for intervention success. All groups were uncomfortable about having lifestyle-related risk conversations and potentially inflicting guilt. The post-treatment group expressed less concern about the possible emotional impact of discussing cancer symptoms, compared with the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LHW interventions to promote early diagnosis or screening were generally considered acceptable in a UK context. LHW interventions focussing on reducing cancer risk may be less feasible.