Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of communicating with people over 50 years of age about vaccination: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Infectious diseases are a major cause of illness and death among older adults. Vaccines can prevent infectious diseases, including against seasonal influenza, pneumococcal diseases, herpes zoster and COVID-19. However, the uptake of vaccination among older adults varies across settings and groups. Communication with healthcare workers can play an important role in older people's decisions to vaccinate. To support an informed decision about vaccination, healthcare workers should be able to identify the older person's knowledge gaps, needs and concerns. They should also be able to share and discuss information about the person's disease risk and disease severity; the vaccine's effectiveness and safety; and practical information about how the person can access vaccines. Therefore, healthcare workers need good communication skills and to actively keep up-to-date with the latest evidence. An understanding of their perceptions and experiences of this communication can help us train and support healthcare workers and design good communication strategies. To explore healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of communicating with older adults about vaccination. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus on 21 March 2020. We also searched Epistemonikos for related reviews, searched grey literature sources, and carried out reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. We searched for studies in any language. We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers and other health system staff towards communication with adults over the age of 50 years or their informal caregivers about vaccination. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this review. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of predefined criteria. We extracted and assessed data regarding study authors' motivations for carrying out their study. We used a thematic synthesis approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each review finding to identify factors that may influence intervention implementation and we developed implications for practice. We included 11 studies in our review. Most studies explored healthcare workers' views and experiences about vaccination of older adults more broadly but also mentioned communication issues specifically. All studies were from high-income countries. The studies focused on doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others working in hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and nursing homes. These healthcare workers discussed different types of vaccines, including influenza, pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccines. The review was carried out before COVID-19 vaccines were available. We downgraded our confidence in several of the findings from high confidence to moderate, low or very low confidence. One reason for this was that some findings were based on only small amounts of data. Another reason was that the findings were based on studies from only a few countries, making us unsure about the relevance of these findings to other settings. Healthcare workers reported that older adults asked about vaccination to different extents, ranging from not asking about vaccines at all, to great demand for information (high confidence finding). When the topic of vaccination was discussed, healthcare workers described a lack of information, and presence of misinformation, fears and concerns about vaccines among older adults (moderate confidence). The ways in which healthcare workers discussed vaccines with older adults appeared to be linked to what they saw as the aim of vaccination communication. Healthcare workers differed among themselves in their perceptions of this aim and about their own roles and the roles of older adults in vaccine decisions. Some healthcare workers thought it was important to provide information but emphasised the right and responsibility of older adults to decide for themselves. Others used information to persuade and convince older adults to vaccinate in order to increase 'compliance' and 'improve' vaccination rates, and in some cases to gain financial benefits. Other healthcare workers tailored their approach to what they believed the older adult needed or wanted (moderate confidence). Healthcare workers believed that older adults' decisions could be influenced by several factors, including the nature of the healthcare worker-patient relationship, the healthcare worker's status, and the extent to which healthcare workers led by example (low confidence). Our review also identified factors that are likely to influence how communication between healthcare workers and older adults take place. These included issues tied to healthcare workers' views and experiences regarding the diseases in question and the vaccines; as well as their views and experiences of the organisational and practical implementation of vaccine services. There is little research focusing specifically on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of communication with older adults about vaccination. The studies we identified suggest that healthcare workers differed among themselves in their perceptions about the aim of this communication and about the role of older adults in vaccine decisions. Based on these findings and the other findings in our review, we have developed a set of questions or prompts that may help health system planners or programme managers when planning or implementing strategies for vaccination communication between healthcare workers and older adults.

Glenton C ，Carlsen B ，Lewin S ，Wennekes MD ，Winje BA ，Eilers R ，VITAL consortium ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.

Ames HM ，Glenton C ，Lewin S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.

This review is one of a series of rapid reviews that Cochrane contributors have prepared to inform the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. When new respiratory infectious diseases become widespread, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers' adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines becomes even more important. Strategies in these guidelines include the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, face shields, gloves and gowns; the separation of patients with respiratory infections from others; and stricter cleaning routines. These strategies can be difficult and time-consuming to adhere to in practice. Authorities and healthcare facilities therefore need to consider how best to support healthcare workers to implement them. To identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. We searched OVID MEDLINE on 26 March 2020. As we searched only one database due to time constraints, we also undertook a rigorous and comprehensive scoping exercise and search of the reference lists of key papers. We did not apply any date limit or language limits. We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with a distinct qualitative component) that focused on the experiences and perceptions of healthcare workers towards factors that impact on their ability to adhere to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. We included studies of any type of healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care. We included studies that focused on IPC guidelines (local, national or international) for respiratory infectious diseases in any healthcare setting. These selection criteria were framed by an understanding of the needs of health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by our search. We used a prespecified sampling frame to sample from the eligible studies, aiming to capture a range of respiratory infectious disease types, geographical spread and data-rich studies. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this synthesis. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided upfront analytical categories, with scope for further thematic analysis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each review finding to identify factors that may influence intervention implementation and developed implications for practice. We found 36 relevant studies and sampled 20 of these studies for our analysis. Ten of these studies were from Asia, four from Africa, four from Central and North America and two from Australia. The studies explored the views and experiences of nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers when dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), tuberculosis (TB), or seasonal influenza. Most of these healthcare workers worked in hospitals; others worked in primary and community care settings. Our review points to several barriers and facilitators that influenced healthcare workers' ability to adhere to IPC guidelines. The following factors are based on findings assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Healthcare workers felt unsure as to how to adhere to local guidelines when they were long and ambiguous or did not reflect national or international guidelines. They could feel overwhelmed because local guidelines were constantly changing. They also described how IPC strategies led to increased workloads and fatigue, for instance because they had to use PPE and take on additional cleaning. Healthcare workers described how their responses to IPC guidelines were influenced by the level of support they felt that they received from their management team. Clear communication about IPC guidelines was seen as vital. But healthcare workers pointed to a lack of training about the infection itself and about how to use PPE. They also thought it was a problem when training was not mandatory. Sufficient space to isolate patients was also seen as vital. A lack of isolation rooms, anterooms and shower facilities was a problem. Other important practical measures described by healthcare workers included minimising overcrowding, fast-tracking infected patients, restricting visitors, and providing easy access to handwashing facilities. A lack of PPE, and equipment that was of poor quality, was a serious concern for healthcare workers and managers. They also pointed to the need to adjust the volume of supplies as infection outbreaks continued. Healthcare workers believed that they followed IPC guidance more closely when they saw the value of it. Some healthcare workers felt motivated to follow the guidance because of fear of infecting themselves or their families, or because they felt responsible for their patients. Some healthcare workers found it difficult to use masks and other equipment when it made patients feel isolated, frightened or stigmatised. Healthcare workers also found masks and other equipment uncomfortable to use. The workplace culture could also influence whether healthcare workers followed IPC guidelines or not. Across many of the findings, healthcare workers pointed to the importance of including all staff, including cleaning staff, porters, kitchen staff and other support staff when implementing IPC guidelines. Healthcare workers point to several factors that influence their ability and willingness to follow IPC guidelines when managing respiratory infectious diseases. These include factors tied to the guideline itself and how it is communicated, support from managers, workplace culture, training, physical space, access to and trust in personal protective equipment, and a desire to deliver good patient care. The review also highlights the importance of including all facility staff, including support staff, when implementing IPC guidelines.

Houghton C ，Meskell P ，Delaney H ，Smalle M ，Glenton C ，Booth A ，Chan XHS ，Devane D ，Biesty LM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Healthcare workers sometimes develop their own informal solutions to deliver services. One such solution is to use their personal mobile phones or other mobile devices in ways that are unregulated by their workplace. This can help them carry out their work when their workplace lacks functional formal communication and information systems, but it can also lead to new challenges. To explore the views, experiences, and practices of healthcare workers, managers and other professionals working in healthcare services regarding their informal, innovative uses of mobile devices to support their work. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus on 11 August 2022 for studies published since 2008 in any language. We carried out citation searches and contacted study authors to clarify published information and seek unpublished data. We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative component. We included studies that explored healthcare workers' views, experiences, and practices regarding mobile phones and other mobile devices, and that included data about healthcare workers' informal use of these devices for work purposes. We extracted data using an extraction form designed for this synthesis, assessed methodological limitations using predefined criteria, and used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesise the data. We used the 'street-level bureaucrat' concept to apply a conceptual lens to our findings and prepare a line of argument that links these findings. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings and the line-of-argument statements. We collaborated with relevant stakeholders when defining the review scope, interpreting the findings, and developing implications for practice. We included 30 studies in the review, published between 2013 and 2022. The studies were from high-, middle- and low-income countries and covered a range of healthcare settings and healthcare worker cadres. Most described mobile phone use as opposed to other mobile devices, such as tablets. We have moderate to high confidence in the statements in the following line of argument. The healthcare workers in this review, like other 'street-level bureaucrats', face a gap between what is expected of them and the resources available to them. To plug this gap, healthcare workers develop their own strategies, including using their own mobile phones, data and airtime. They also use other personal resources, including their personal time when taking and making calls outside working hours, and their personal networks when contacting others for help and advice. In some settings, healthcare workers' personal phone use, although unregulated, has become a normal part of many work processes. Some healthcare workers therefore experience pressure or expectations from colleagues and managers to use their personal phones. Some also feel driven to use their phones at work and at home because of feelings of obligation towards their patients and colleagues. At best, healthcare workers' use of their personal phones, time and networks helps humanise healthcare. It allows healthcare workers to be more flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of the patient. It can give patients access to individual healthcare workers rather than generic systems and can help patients keep their sensitive information out of the formal system. It also allows healthcare workers to communicate with each other in more personalised, socially appropriate ways than formal systems allow. All of this can strengthen healthcare workers' relationships with community members and colleagues. However, these informal approaches can also replicate existing social hierarchies and deepen existing inequities among healthcare workers. Personal phone use costs healthcare workers money. This is a particular problem for lower-level healthcare workers and healthcare workers in low-income settings as they are likely to be paid less and may have less access to work phones or compensation. Out-of-hours use may also be more of a burden for lower-level healthcare workers, as they may find it harder to ignore calls when they are at home. Healthcare workers with poor access to electricity and the internet are less able to use informal mobile phone solutions, while healthcare workers who lack skills and training in how to appraise unendorsed online information are likely to struggle to identify trustworthy information. Informal digital channels can help healthcare workers expand their networks. But healthcare workers who rely on personal networks to seek help and advice are at a disadvantage if these networks are weak. Healthcare workers' use of their personal resources can also lead to problems for patients and can benefit some patients more than others. For instance, when healthcare workers store and share patient information on their personal phones, the confidentiality of this information may be broken. In addition, healthcare workers may decide to use their personal resources on some types of patients, but not others. Healthcare workers sometimes describe using their personal phones and their personal time and networks to help patients and clients whom they assess as being particularly in need. These decisions are likely to reflect their own values and ideas, for instance about social equity and patient 'worthiness'. But these may not necessarily reflect the goals, ideals and regulations of the formal healthcare system. Finally, informal mobile phone use plugs gaps in the system but can also weaken the system. The storing and sharing of information on personal phones and through informal channels can represent a 'shadow IT' (information technology) system where information about patient flow, logistics, etc., is not recorded in the formal system. Healthcare workers may also be more distracted at work, for instance, by calls from colleagues and family members or by social media use. Such challenges may be particularly difficult for weak healthcare systems. By finding their own informal solutions to workplace challenges, healthcare workers can be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of patients, colleagues and themselves. But these solutions also have several drawbacks. Efforts to strengthen formal health systems should consider how to retain the benefits of informal solutions and reduce their negative effects.

Glenton C ，Paulsen E ，Agarwal S ，Gopinathan U ，Johansen M ，Kyaddondo D ，Munabi-Babigumira S ，Nabukenya J ，Nakityo I ，Namaganda R ，Namitala J ，Neumark T ，Nsangi A ，Pakenham-Walsh NM ，Rashidian A ，Royston G ，Sewankambo N ，Tamrat T ，Lewin S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.

Mental health problems contribute significantly to the overall disease burden worldwide and are major causes of disability, suicide, and ischaemic heart disease. People with bipolar disorder report lower levels of physical activity than the general population, and are at greater risk of chronic health conditions including cardiovascular disease and obesity. These contribute to poor health outcomes. Physical activity has the potential to improve quality of life and physical and mental well-being. To identify the factors that influence participation in physical activity for people diagnosed with bipolar disorder from the perspectives of service users, carers, service providers, and practitioners to help inform the design and implementation of interventions that promote physical activity. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and eight other databases to March 2021. We also contacted experts in the field, searched the grey literature, and carried out reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. There were no language restrictions. We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that focused on the experiences and attitudes of service users, carers, service providers, and healthcare professionals towards physical activity for bipolar disorder. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this review. We assessed methodological limitations using a list of predefined questions. We used the "best fit" framework synthesis based on a revised version of the Health Belief Model to analyse and present the evidence. We assessed methodological limitations using the CASP Qualitative Checklist. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) guidance to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each finding to identify factors to inform the practice of health and care professionals and the design and development of physical activity interventions for people with bipolar disorder. We included 12 studies involving a total of 592 participants (422 participants who contributed qualitative data to an online survey, 170 participants in qualitative research studies). Most studies explored the views and experiences of physical activity of people with experience of bipolar disorder. A number of studies also reported on personal experiences of physical activity components of lifestyle interventions. One study included views from family carers and clinicians. The majority of studies were from high-income countries, with only one study conducted in a middle-income country. Most participants were described as stable and had been living with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder for a number of years. We downgraded our confidence in several of the findings from high confidence to moderate or low confidence, as some findings were based on only small amounts of data, and the findings were based on studies from only a few countries, questioning the relevance of these findings to other settings. We also had very few perspectives of family members, other carers, or health professionals supporting people with bipolar disorder. The studies did not include any findings from service providers about their perspectives on supporting this aspect of care. There were a number of factors that limited people's ability to undertake physical activity. Shame and stigma about one's physical appearance and mental health diagnosis were discussed. Some people felt their sporting skills/competencies had been lost when they left school. Those who had been able to maintain exercise through the transition into adulthood appeared to be more likely to include physical activity in their regular routine. Physical health limits and comorbid health conditions limited activity. This included bipolar medication, being overweight, smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and sleep, and these barriers were linked to negative coping skills. Practical problems included affordability, accessibility, transport links, and the weather. Workplace or health schemes that offered discounts were viewed positively. The lack of opportunity for exercise within inpatient mental health settings was a problem. Facilitating factors included being psychologically stable and ready to adopt new lifestyle behaviours. There were positive benefits of being active outdoors and connecting with nature. Achieving balance, rhythm, and routine helped to support mood management. Fitting physical activity into a regular routine despite fluctuating mood or motivation appeared to be beneficial if practised at the right intensity and pace. Over- or under-exercising could be counterproductive and accelerate depressive or manic moods. Physical activity also helped to provide a structure to people's daily routines and could lead to other positive lifestyle benefits. Monitoring physical or other activities could be an effective way to identify potential triggers or early warning signs. Technology was helpful for some. People who had researched bipolar disorder and had developed a better understanding of the condition showed greater confidence in managing their care or providing care to others. Social support from friends/family or health professionals was an enabling factor, as was finding the right type of exercise, which for many people was walking. Other benefits included making social connections, weight loss, improved quality of life, and better mood regulation. Few people had been told of the benefits of physical activity. Better education and training of health professionals could support a more holistic approach to physical and mental well-being. Involving mental health professionals in the multidisciplinary delivery of physical activity interventions could be beneficial and improve care. Clear guidelines could help people to initiate and incorporate lifestyle changes. There is very little research focusing on factors that influence participation in physical activity in bipolar disorder. The studies we identified suggest that men and women with bipolar disorder face a range of obstacles and challenges to being active. The evidence also suggests that there are effective ways to promote managed physical activity. The research highlighted the important role that health and care settings, and professionals, can play in assessing individuals' physical health needs and how healthy lifestyles may be promoted. Based on these findings, we have provided a summary of key elements to consider for developing physical activity interventions for bipolar disorder.

McCartan CJ ，Yap J ，Best P ，Breedvelt J ，Breslin G ，Firth J ，Tully MA ，Webb P ，White C ，Gilbody S ，Churchill R ，Davidson G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》