Search results for: Yvonne Howard

Authors: V. Howard, R. Maguire, S. Corrigan

Abstract:

Background: Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) is a chronic autoimmune disease, typically diagnosed in childhood. T1D puts an enormous strain on families; controlling blood-glucose in children is difficult and the consequences of poor control for patient health are significant. Successful illness management and better health outcomes can be dependent on quality of caregiving. On diagnosis, parent-caregivers face a steep learning curve as T1D care requires a significant level of knowledge to inform complex decision making throughout the day. The majority of illness management is carried out in the home setting, independent of clinical health providers. Parent-caregivers vary in their level of knowledge and their level of engagement in applying this knowledge in the practice of illness management. Enabling researchers to quantify these aspects of the caregiver experience is key to identifying targets for psychosocial support interventions, which are desirable for reducing stress and anxiety in this highly burdened cohort, and supporting better health outcomes in children. Currently, there are limited tools available that are designed to capture this information. Where tools do exist, they are not comprehensive and do not adequately capture the lived experience. Objectives: Development of quantitative tools, informed by lived experience, to enable researchers gather data on parent-caregiver knowledge and engagement, which accurately represents the experience/cohort and enables exploration of questions that are of real-world value to the cohort themselves. Methods: This research employed an engaged approach to address the problem of quantifying two key aspects of caregiver diabetes management: Knowledge and engagement. The research process was multi-staged and iterative. Stage 1: Working from a constructivist standpoint, literature was reviewed to identify relevant questionnaires, scales and single-item measures of T1D caregiver knowledge and engagement, and harvest candidate questionnaire items. Stage 2: Aggregated findings from the review were circulated among a PPI (patient and public involvement) expert panel of caregivers (n=6), for discussion and feedback. Stage 3: In collaboration with the expert panel, data were interpreted through the lens of lived experience to create a long-list of candidate items for novel questionnaires. Items were categorized as either ‘knowledge’ or ‘engagement’. Stage 4: A Delphi-method process (iterative surveys) was used to prioritize question items and generate novel questions that further captured the lived experience. Stage 5: Both questionnaires were piloted to refine wording of text to increase accessibility and limit socially desirable responding. Stage 6: Tools were piloted using an online survey that was deployed using an online peer-support group for caregivers for Juveniles with T1D. Ongoing Research: 123 parent-caregivers completed the survey. Data analysis is ongoing to establish face and content validity qualitatively and through exploratory factor analysis. Reliability will be established using an alternative-form method and Cronbach’s alpha will assess internal consistency. Work will be completed by early 2024. Conclusion: These tools will enable researchers to gain deeper insights into caregiving practices among parents of juveniles with T1D. Development was driven by lived experience, illustrating the value of engaged research at all levels of the research process.

Keywords: caregiving, engaged research, juvenile type 1 diabetes, quantified engagement and knowledge

Procedia PDF Downloads 26

Authors: Tim Crocker-Buque, Sandra Mounier-Jack, Natasha Howard

Abstract:

Background: Due to both the increasing scale and speed of urbanisation, urban areas in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) host increasingly large populations of under-immunized children, with the additional associated risks of rapid disease transmission in high-density living environments. Multiple interdependent factors are associated with these coverage disparities in urban areas and most evidence comes from relatively few countries, e.g., predominantly India, Kenya, Nigeria, and some from Pakistan, Iran, and Brazil. This study aimed to identify, describe, and assess the main tools used to measure or improve coverage of immunisation services in poor urban areas. Methods: Authors used a qualitative review design, including academic and non-academic literature, to identify tools used to improve coverage of public health interventions in urban areas. Authors selected and extracted sources that provided good examples of specific tools, or categories of tools, used in a context relevant to urban immunization. Diagnostic (e.g., for data collection, analysis, and insight generation) and programme tools (e.g., for investigating or improving ongoing programmes) and interventions (e.g., multi-component or stand-alone with evidence) were selected for inclusion to provide a range of type and availability of relevant tools. These were then prioritised using a decision-analysis framework and a tool selection guide for programme managers developed. Results: Authors reviewed tools used in urban immunisation contexts and tools designed for (i) non-immunization and/or non-health interventions in urban areas, and (ii) immunisation in rural contexts that had relevance for urban areas (e.g., Reaching every District/Child/ Zone). Many approaches combined several tools and methods, which authors categorised as diagnostic, programme, and intervention. The most common diagnostic tools were cross-sectional surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, secondary analysis of routine data, and geographical mapping of outcomes, resources, and services. Programme tools involved multiple stages of data collection, analysis, insight generation, and intervention planning and included guidance documents from WHO (World Health Organisation), UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), USAID (United States Agency for International Development), and governments, and articles reporting on diagnostics, interventions, and/or evaluations to improve urban immunisation. Interventions involved service improvement, education, reminder/recall, incentives, outreach, mass-media, or were multi-component. The main gaps in existing tools were an assessment of macro/policy-level factors, exploration of effective immunization communication channels, and measuring in/out-migration. The proposed framework uses a problem tree approach to suggest tools to address five common challenges (i.e. identifying populations, understanding communities, issues with service access and use, improving services, improving coverage) based on context and available data. Conclusion: This study identified many tools relevant to evaluating urban LMIC immunisation programmes, including significant crossover between tools. This was encouraging in terms of supporting the identification of common areas, but problematic as data volumes, instructions, and activities could overwhelm managers and tools are not always suitably applied to suitable contexts. Further research is needed on how best to combine tools and methods to suit local contexts. Authors’ initial framework can be tested and developed further.

Keywords: health equity, immunisation, low and middle-income countries, poverty, urban health

Procedia PDF Downloads 116