Group clinics for young adults living with diabetes in an ethnically diverse, socioeconomically deprived population: mixed-methods evaluation

C. Papoutsi, D. Hargreaves, A. Hagell, N. Hounsome, H. Skirrow, K. Muralidhara, G. Colligan, S. Vijayaraghavan, T. Greenhalgh, S. Finer
{"title":"Group clinics for young adults living with diabetes in an ethnically diverse, socioeconomically deprived population: mixed-methods evaluation","authors":"C. Papoutsi, D. Hargreaves, A. Hagell, N. Hounsome, H. Skirrow, K. Muralidhara, G. Colligan, S. Vijayaraghavan, T. Greenhalgh, S. Finer","doi":"10.3310/nkcr8246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Our research was based on the expressed need to evaluate the potential for group clinics to enhance care within the NHS for people with long-term conditions.\n \n \n \n We aimed to explore the scope, feasibility, impact and potential scalability of group clinics for young adults with diabetes who have poor experiences of care and clinical outcomes. We applied a participatory approach to the entire research process, where appropriate.\n \n \n \n Four NHS trusts delivering diabetes care to young adults in ethnically diverse and socioeconomically deprived communities.\n \n \n \n We involved 135 young adults as participants in our research (73 at two intervention sites and 62 at two control sites).\n \n \n \n A realist review synthesised existing evidence for group clinics to understand ‘what works, for whom, under what circumstances’. Using the realist review findings and a scoping exercise, we used co-design to develop a model of group clinic-based care, which we then implemented and evaluated using primarily qualitative methods, with quantitative and costs analyses to inform future evaluations.\n \n \n \n Young adults reported positive experiences from the group clinics. However, across the group clinics delivered, only one-third (on average) of those invited to specific clinics attended, despite substantial efforts to encourage attendance, and only 37 out of 73 (51%) participants attended any group clinics. Social learning helped the acquisition of new knowledge and normalisation of experiences. Group clinics met previously unreached emotional needs, and the relationships that formed between young adults, and between them and the staff facilitating the clinics, were key. Clinical staff delivered the clinics using a facilitatory approach, and a youth worker helped to ensure that the care model was developmentally appropriate. Existing organisational structures presented substantial challenges to the delivery of group clinics, and there was considerable hidden work required by the staff delivering them. Group clinics may augment one-to-one care but do not necessarily replace it. The average cost of each group clinic, per participant, was £127–58.\n \n \n \n Engagement in co-design and the research process and participation in the group clinics was challenging, and limited our quantitative data analysis. These limitations had implications for the fidelity of the intervention and generalisability of our findings. During the research, we established that group clinics would not replace existing care, and that further work is required to understand the theoretical base of ‘blended’ models of care, and the potential of digital offers, before a definitive evaluation (a cluster-randomised trial) can be designed.\n \n \n \n Our findings show that young adults with diabetes, including those in deprived and ethnically diverse settings, have positive experiences of group-based care, and it may augment existing one-to-one care. However, engagement with group-based care is challenging despite the participatory design.\n \n \n \n Future research is needed to develop the group clinic model prior to definitive evaluation.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as CRD42017058726 and ISRCTN83599025.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/nkcr8246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Our research was based on the expressed need to evaluate the potential for group clinics to enhance care within the NHS for people with long-term conditions. We aimed to explore the scope, feasibility, impact and potential scalability of group clinics for young adults with diabetes who have poor experiences of care and clinical outcomes. We applied a participatory approach to the entire research process, where appropriate. Four NHS trusts delivering diabetes care to young adults in ethnically diverse and socioeconomically deprived communities. We involved 135 young adults as participants in our research (73 at two intervention sites and 62 at two control sites). A realist review synthesised existing evidence for group clinics to understand ‘what works, for whom, under what circumstances’. Using the realist review findings and a scoping exercise, we used co-design to develop a model of group clinic-based care, which we then implemented and evaluated using primarily qualitative methods, with quantitative and costs analyses to inform future evaluations. Young adults reported positive experiences from the group clinics. However, across the group clinics delivered, only one-third (on average) of those invited to specific clinics attended, despite substantial efforts to encourage attendance, and only 37 out of 73 (51%) participants attended any group clinics. Social learning helped the acquisition of new knowledge and normalisation of experiences. Group clinics met previously unreached emotional needs, and the relationships that formed between young adults, and between them and the staff facilitating the clinics, were key. Clinical staff delivered the clinics using a facilitatory approach, and a youth worker helped to ensure that the care model was developmentally appropriate. Existing organisational structures presented substantial challenges to the delivery of group clinics, and there was considerable hidden work required by the staff delivering them. Group clinics may augment one-to-one care but do not necessarily replace it. The average cost of each group clinic, per participant, was £127–58. Engagement in co-design and the research process and participation in the group clinics was challenging, and limited our quantitative data analysis. These limitations had implications for the fidelity of the intervention and generalisability of our findings. During the research, we established that group clinics would not replace existing care, and that further work is required to understand the theoretical base of ‘blended’ models of care, and the potential of digital offers, before a definitive evaluation (a cluster-randomised trial) can be designed. Our findings show that young adults with diabetes, including those in deprived and ethnically diverse settings, have positive experiences of group-based care, and it may augment existing one-to-one care. However, engagement with group-based care is challenging despite the participatory design. Future research is needed to develop the group clinic model prior to definitive evaluation. This study is registered as CRD42017058726 and ISRCTN83599025. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
在种族多样、社会经济贫困的人群中为患有糖尿病的年轻人开设的团体诊所:混合方法评估
我们的研究是基于明确需要评估团体诊所在NHS内加强对长期疾病患者护理的潜力。我们旨在探索为护理经验和临床结果较差的糖尿病年轻人开设团体诊所的范围、可行性、影响和潜在的可扩展性。在适当的情况下,我们在整个研究过程中采用了参与式方法。四个NHS信托机构为种族多样和社会经济贫困社区的年轻人提供糖尿病护理。我们让135名年轻人参与了我们的研究(73人在两个干预点,62人在两种对照点)。一项现实主义审查综合了现有证据,让团体诊所了解“什么有效,对谁有效,在什么情况下有效”。利用现实主义审查结果和范围界定,我们使用共同设计开发了一个基于小组诊所的护理模型,然后我们主要使用定性方法实施和评估,并进行定量和成本分析,为未来的评估提供信息。年轻人从团体诊所报告了积极的经历。然而,在提供的团体诊所中,尽管大力鼓励参加,但受邀参加特定诊所的人中只有三分之一(平均)参加了,73名参与者中只有37人(51%)参加了任何团体诊所。社会学习有助于获得新知识和使经验正常化。团体诊所满足了以前未实现的情感需求,年轻人之间以及他们与诊所工作人员之间形成的关系是关键。临床工作人员使用便利的方法提供诊所,一名青年工作者帮助确保护理模式适合发展。现有的组织结构给团体诊所的提供带来了巨大的挑战,提供诊所的工作人员需要做大量的隐蔽工作。团体诊所可能会增加一对一的护理,但不一定会取代它。每个参与者每个团体诊所的平均成本为127-58英镑。参与联合设计和研究过程以及参与小组诊所具有挑战性,并限制了我们的定量数据分析。这些局限性对干预的保真度和我们发现的普遍性有影响。在研究过程中,我们确定了团体诊所不会取代现有的护理,在设计最终评估(集群随机试验)之前,还需要进一步的工作来了解“混合”护理模式的理论基础和数字服务的潜力。我们的研究结果表明,患有糖尿病的年轻人,包括那些生活在贫困和种族多样化环境中的人,在基于群体的护理方面有着积极的体验,这可能会加强现有的一对一护理。然而,尽管采用了参与式设计,但参与基于群体的护理仍具有挑战性。在最终评估之前,需要进行未来的研究来开发群体临床模型。本研究注册号为CRD42017058726和ISRCTN83599025。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第25期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信