Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence.

Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses. To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified. We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification. For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population. The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations. This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

Moloi H ，Daniels K ，Brooke-Sumner C ，Cooper S ，Odendaal WA ，Thorne M ，Akama E ，Leon N ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of primary healthcare integration: a scoping review of qualitative evidence.

Primary healthcare (PHC) integration has been promoted globally as a tool for health sector reform and universal health coverage (UHC), especially in low-resource settings. However, for a range of reasons, implementation and impact remain variable. PHC integration, at its simplest, can be considered a way of delivering PHC services together that sometimes have been delivered as a series of separate or 'vertical' health programmes. Healthcare workers are known to shape the success of implementing reform interventions. Understanding healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration can therefore provide insights into the role healthcare workers play in shaping implementation efforts and the impact of PHC integration. However, the heterogeneity of the evidence base complicates our understanding of their role in shaping the implementation, delivery, and impact of PHC integration, and the role of contextual factors influencing their responses. To map the qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of PHC integration to characterise the evidence base, with a view to better inform future syntheses on the topic. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 July 2020. We did not search for grey literature due to the many published records identified. We included studies with qualitative and mixed methods designs that reported on healthcare worker perceptions and experiences of PHC integration from any country. We excluded settings other than PHC and community-based health care, participants other than healthcare workers, and interventions broader than healthcare services. We used translation support from colleagues and Google Translate software to screen non-English records. Where translation was not feasible we categorised these records as studies awaiting classification. For data extraction, we used a customised data extraction form containing items developed using inductive and deductive approaches. We performed independent extraction in duplicate for a sample on 10% of studies allowed for sufficient agreement to be reached between review authors. We analysed extracted data quantitatively by counting the number of studies per indicator and converting these into proportions with additional qualitative descriptive information. Indicators included descriptions of study methods, country setting, intervention type, scope and strategies, implementing healthcare workers, and client target population. The review included 184 studies for analysis based on 191 included papers. Most studies were published in the last 12 years, with a sharp increase in the last five years. Studies mostly employed methods with cross-sectional qualitative design (mainly interviews and focus group discussions), and few used longitudinal or ethnographic (or both) designs. Studies covered 37 countries, with close to an even split in the proportions of high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There were gaps in the geographical spread for both HICs and LMICs and some countries were more dominant, such as the USA for HICs, South Africa for middle-income countries, and Uganda for low-income countries. Methods were mainly cross-sectional observational studies with few longitudinal studies. A minority of studies used an analytical conceptual model to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the integration study. The main finding was the various levels of diversity found in the evidence base on PHC integration studies that examined healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences. The review identified six different configurations of health service streams that were being integrated and these were categorised as: mental and behavioural health; HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and sexual reproductive health; maternal, women, and child health; non-communicable diseases; and two broader categories, namely general PHC services, and allied and specialised services. Within the health streams, the review mapped the scope of the interventions as full or partial integration. The review mapped the use of three different integration strategies and categorised these as horizontal integration, service expansion, and service linkage strategies. The wide range of healthcare workers who participated in the implementation of integration interventions was mapped and these included policymakers, senior managers, middle and frontline managers, clinicians, allied healthcare professionals, lay healthcare workers, and health system support staff. We mapped the range of client target populations. This scoping review provides a systematic, descriptive overview of the heterogeneity in qualitative literature on healthcare workers' perceptions and experience of PHC integration, pointing to diversity with regard to country settings; study types; client populations; healthcare worker populations; and intervention focus, scope, and strategies. It would be important for researchers and decision-makers to understand how the diversity in PHC integration intervention design, implementation, and context may influence how healthcare workers shape PHC integration impact. The classification of studies on the various dimensions (e.g. integration focus, scope, strategy, and type of healthcare workers and client populations) can help researchers to navigate the way the literature varies and for specifying potential questions for future qualitative evidence syntheses.

Moloi H ，Daniels K ，Brooke-Sumner C ，Cooper S ，Odendaal WA ，Thorne M ，Akama E ，Leon N ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

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》

Qualitative evidence synthesis informing our understanding of people's perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication.

Health communication is an area where changing technologies, particularly digital technologies, have a growing role to play in delivering and exchanging health information between individuals, communities, health systems, and governments.[1] Such innovation has the potential to strengthen health systems and services, with substantial investments in digital health already taking place, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Communication using mobile phones is an important way of contacting individual people and the public more generally to deliver and exchange health information. Such technologies are used increasingly in this capacity, but poor planning and short‐term projects may be limiting their potential for health improvement. The assumption that mobile devices will solve problems that other forms of communication have not is also prevalent. In this context, understanding people's views and experiences may lead to firmer knowledge on which to build better programs. A qualitative evidence synthesis by Heather Ames and colleagues on clients' perceptions and experiences of targeted digital communication focuses on a particular type of messaging – targeted messages from health services delivered to particular group(s) via mobile devices, in this case looking at communicating with pregnant women and parents of young children, and with adults and teenagers about sexual health and family planning.[2] These areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (RMNCAH) are where important gains have been made worldwide, but there remains room for improvement. Ames and colleagues sought to examine and understand people's perceptions and experiences of using digital targeted client communication. This might include communication in different formats and with a range of purposes related to RMNCAH – for example, receiving text message reminders to take medicines (e.g. HIV medicines) or go to appointments (such as childhood vaccination appointments), or phone calls offering information or education (such as about breastfeeding or childhood illnesses), support (e.g. providing encouragement to change behaviours) or advice (such as advising about local healthcare services). These communication strategies have the potential to improve health outcomes by communicating with people or by supporting behaviour change. However, changing people's health behaviours to a significant and meaningful degree is notoriously challenging and seldom very effective across the board. There are a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions aiming to change behaviours of both patients and providers, with the overall objective of improving health outcomes – many of which show little or no average effects across groups of people.[3] This evidence synthesis is therefore important as it may help to understand why communicating with people around their health might (or might not) change behaviours and improve consequent health outcomes. By examining the experiences and perspectives of those receiving the interventions, this qualitative evidence synthesis allows us to better understand the interventions' acceptability and usefulness, barriers to their uptake, and factors to be considered when planning implementation. The synthesis looked at 35 studies from countries around the world, focussing on communication related to RMNCAH. Of the 35 studies, 16 were from high‐income countries, mainly the United States, and 19 were from low‐ or middle‐income countries, mainly African countries. Many of the studies presented hypothetical scenarios. The findings from the synthesis are mixed and give us a more nuanced picture of the role of targeted digital communication. People receiving targeted digital communications from health services often liked and valued these contacts, feeling supported and connected by them. However, some also reported problems with the use of these technologies, which may represent barriers to their use. These included practical or technical barriers like poor network or Internet access, as well as cost, language, technical literacy, reading or issues around confidentiality, especially where personal health conditions were involved. Access to mobile phones may also be a barrier, particularly for women and adolescents who may have to share or borrow a phone or who have access controlled by others. In such situations it may be difficult to receive communications or to maintain privacy of content. The synthesis also shows that people's experiences of these interventions are influenced by factors such as the timing of messages, their frequency and content, and their trust in the sender. Identifying key features of such communications by the people who use them might therefore help to inform future choices about how and when such messaging is used. The authors used their knowledge from 25 separate findings to list ten implications for practice. This section of the review is hugely valuable, making a practical contribution to assist governments and public health agencies wishing to develop or improve their delivery of digital health. The implications serve as a list of points to consider, including issues of access (seven different aspects are considered), privacy and confidentiality, reliability, credibility and trust, and responsiveness to the needs and preferences of users. In this way, qualitative evidence is building a picture of how to better communicate with people about health. For example, an earlier 2017 Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames, Glenton and Lewin on parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination provides ample evidence that may help program managers to deliver or plan communication interventions in ways that are responsive to and acceptable to parents.[4] The qualitative synthesis method, therefore, puts a spotlight on how people's experiences of health and health care in the context of their lives may lead to the design of better interventions, as well as to experimental studies which take more account of the diversity that exists in people's attitudes and decision‐making experiences.[5] In the case of this qualitative evidence synthesis by Ames and colleagues, the method pulled together a substantial body of research (35 data‐rich studies were sampled from 48 studies identified, with the high‐to‐moderate confidence in the evidence for 13 of the synthesized findings). The evidence from this review can inform the development of interventions, and the design of trials and their implementation. While waiting for such new trials or trial evidence on effects to emerge, decision‐makers can build their programs on the highly informative base developed by this review. This qualitative evidence synthesis, alongside other reviews, has informed development by the World Health Organization of its first guideline for using digital technologies for health systems strengthening,[1, 6] part of a comprehensive program of work to better understand and support implementation of such new technologies.

Ryan R ，Hill S 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》