Co-designed strategies for delivery of positive newborn bloodspot screening results to parents: the ReSPoND mixed-methods study

J. Chudleigh, Pru Holder, Francesco Fusco, J. Bonham, M. Bryon, L. Moody, Stephen Morris, E. Olander, Alan Simpson, Holly Chinnery, F. Ulph, K. Southern
{"title":"Co-designed strategies for delivery of positive newborn bloodspot screening results to parents: the ReSPoND mixed-methods study","authors":"J. Chudleigh, Pru Holder, Francesco Fusco, J. Bonham, M. Bryon, L. Moody, Stephen Morris, E. Olander, Alan Simpson, Holly Chinnery, F. Ulph, K. Southern","doi":"10.3310/htxh9624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Newborn bloodspot screening identifies presymptomatic babies who are affected by genetic or congenital conditions. Each year, around 10,000 parents of babies born in England are given a positive newborn bloodspot screening result for one of nine conditions that are currently screened for. Despite national guidance, variation exists regarding the approaches used to communicate these results to families; poor communication practices can lead to various negative sequelae.\n \n \n \n Identify and quantify approaches that are currently used to deliver positive newborn bloodspot screening results to parents (phase 1). Develop (phase 2), implement and evaluate (phase 3) co-designed interventions for improving the delivery of positive newborn bloodspot screening results. Quantify the resources required to deliver the co-designed interventions in selected case-study sites and compare these with costs associated with current practice (phase 3).\n \n \n \n This was a mixed-methods study using four phases, with defined outputs underpinned by Family Systems Theory.\n \n \n \n All newborn bloodspot screening laboratories in England (n = 13).\n \n \n \n Laboratory staff and clinicians involved in processing or communicating positive newborn bloodspot screening results, and parents of infants who had received a positive or negative newborn bloodspot screening result.\n \n \n \n Three co-designed interventions that were developed during phase 2 and implemented during phase 3 of the study.\n \n \n \n Acceptability of the co-designed interventions for the communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results.\n \n \n \n Staff were acutely aware of the significance of a positive newborn bloodspot screening result and the impact that this could have on families. Challenges existed when communicating results from laboratories to relevant clinicians, particularly in the case of congenital hypothyroidism. Clinicians who were involved in the communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results were committed to making sure that the message, although distressing for parents, was communicated well. Despite this, variation in communication practices existed. This was influenced by many factors, including the available resources and lack of clear guidance. Although generally well received, implementation of the co-designed interventions in practice served to illuminate barriers to acceptability and feasibility. The interventions would not influence NHS expenditure and could be cost neutral when delivered by teleconsultations.\n \n \n \n Participants with a pre-existing interest in this topic may have been more likely to self-select into the study. The researchers are experienced in this field, which may have biased data collection and analysis. COVID-19 hindered implementation and related data collection of the co-designed interventions.\n \n \n \n There was variation in the processes used to report positive newborn bloodspot screening results from newborn bloodspot screening laboratories to clinical teams and then to families. The various practices identified may reflect local needs, but more often reflected local resource. A more consistent ‘best practice’ approach is required, not just in the UK but perhaps globally. The co-designed interventions represent a starting point for achieving this.\n \n \n \n Future work should include a national evaluation study with predefined outcomes, accompanied by an economic evaluation, to assess the acceptability, feasibility and usability of the co-designed interventions in practice nationally.\n \n \n \n This trial is registered as ISRCTN15330120.\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. 19. 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":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/htxh9624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Newborn bloodspot screening identifies presymptomatic babies who are affected by genetic or congenital conditions. Each year, around 10,000 parents of babies born in England are given a positive newborn bloodspot screening result for one of nine conditions that are currently screened for. Despite national guidance, variation exists regarding the approaches used to communicate these results to families; poor communication practices can lead to various negative sequelae. Identify and quantify approaches that are currently used to deliver positive newborn bloodspot screening results to parents (phase 1). Develop (phase 2), implement and evaluate (phase 3) co-designed interventions for improving the delivery of positive newborn bloodspot screening results. Quantify the resources required to deliver the co-designed interventions in selected case-study sites and compare these with costs associated with current practice (phase 3). This was a mixed-methods study using four phases, with defined outputs underpinned by Family Systems Theory. All newborn bloodspot screening laboratories in England (n = 13). Laboratory staff and clinicians involved in processing or communicating positive newborn bloodspot screening results, and parents of infants who had received a positive or negative newborn bloodspot screening result. Three co-designed interventions that were developed during phase 2 and implemented during phase 3 of the study. Acceptability of the co-designed interventions for the communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results. Staff were acutely aware of the significance of a positive newborn bloodspot screening result and the impact that this could have on families. Challenges existed when communicating results from laboratories to relevant clinicians, particularly in the case of congenital hypothyroidism. Clinicians who were involved in the communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results were committed to making sure that the message, although distressing for parents, was communicated well. Despite this, variation in communication practices existed. This was influenced by many factors, including the available resources and lack of clear guidance. Although generally well received, implementation of the co-designed interventions in practice served to illuminate barriers to acceptability and feasibility. The interventions would not influence NHS expenditure and could be cost neutral when delivered by teleconsultations. Participants with a pre-existing interest in this topic may have been more likely to self-select into the study. The researchers are experienced in this field, which may have biased data collection and analysis. COVID-19 hindered implementation and related data collection of the co-designed interventions. There was variation in the processes used to report positive newborn bloodspot screening results from newborn bloodspot screening laboratories to clinical teams and then to families. The various practices identified may reflect local needs, but more often reflected local resource. A more consistent ‘best practice’ approach is required, not just in the UK but perhaps globally. The co-designed interventions represent a starting point for achieving this. Future work should include a national evaluation study with predefined outcomes, accompanied by an economic evaluation, to assess the acceptability, feasibility and usability of the co-designed interventions in practice nationally. This trial is registered as ISRCTN15330120. 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. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
将阳性新生儿血库筛查结果传递给父母的共同设计策略:ReSPoND混合方法研究
新生儿血库筛查可识别受遗传或先天性疾病影响的症状前婴儿。每年,大约有10000名在英国出生的婴儿的父母得到了阳性的新生儿血库筛查结果,这是目前正在筛查的九种疾病之一。尽管有国家指导,但在向家庭传达这些结果的方法方面存在差异;不良的沟通习惯会导致各种负面后遗症。确定并量化目前用于向父母提供阳性新生儿血库筛查结果的方法(第一阶段)。制定(第2阶段)、实施和评估(第3阶段)共同设计的干预措施,以改善新生儿血库阳性筛查结果的交付。量化在选定的案例研究地点提供共同设计的干预措施所需的资源,并将其与当前实践的相关成本进行比较(第3阶段)。这是一项混合方法的研究,使用了四个阶段,并以家庭系统理论为基础确定了产出。英国所有新生儿血库筛查实验室(n = 13) 。参与处理或交流阳性新生儿血库筛查结果的实验室工作人员和临床医生,以及收到阳性或阴性新生儿血库筛选结果的婴儿父母。在研究的第二阶段制定并在第三阶段实施的三项共同设计的干预措施。共同设计的干预措施对新生儿血库筛查阳性结果的可接受性。工作人员敏锐地意识到新生儿血库筛查结果呈阳性的重要性,以及这可能对家庭产生的影响。在将实验室的结果传达给相关临床医生时存在挑战,尤其是在先天性甲状腺功能减退的情况下。参与新生儿血库阳性筛查结果沟通的临床医生致力于确保这一信息得到良好沟通,尽管这让父母感到痛苦。尽管如此,沟通实践仍存在差异。这受到许多因素的影响,包括现有资源和缺乏明确的指导。尽管普遍受到好评,但在实践中实施共同设计的干预措施有助于阐明可接受性和可行性的障碍。这些干预措施不会影响NHS的支出,并且在通过远程咨询提供时可以实现成本中性。对该主题已有兴趣的参与者可能更有可能自我选择参与研究。研究人员在这一领域经验丰富,可能在数据收集和分析方面存在偏见。新冠肺炎阻碍了共同设计干预措施的实施和相关数据收集。从新生儿血库筛查实验室到临床团队,再到家庭,报告新生儿血库阳性筛查结果的过程各不相同。所确定的各种做法可能反映了当地的需求,但更多地反映了当地资源。不仅在英国,也许在全球范围内,都需要一种更加一致的“最佳实践”方法。共同设计的干预措施是实现这一目标的起点。未来的工作应包括一项具有预先确定的结果的国家评估研究,同时进行经济评估,以评估共同设计的干预措施在国家实践中的可接受性、可行性和可用性。本试验注册号为ISRCTN15330120。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19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