Search Results

0be5d40d-fcbc-4b27-971a-75e1967ce33d COMPLETED: Development of a core outcome set for nurse wellbeing: a Delphi study Lead applicant: Dr Gemma Simons Co-applicants: Prof Jane Ball , Prof David Baldwin , Dr Emma Wadey, Dr Catherine Smith Participant Information Sheet : Download here Project Summary: Read project summary document (short summary) Read project summary document (long summary) Background : Little attention has been paid to the work lives and wellbeing of the nursing workforce, despite it being a priority area. Currently, there is no consensus on what wellbeing is or how it should be measured. An evidence-based, positive way of measuring wellbeing is through a Core Outcome Set. What is a Core Outcome Set? Outcomes are used to measure whether a strategy, intervention or action has had the required result. There are often multiple outcomes and ways of measuring them, which makes comparison difficult. A Core Outcome Set is an agreed, or consensus, set of outcomes and measurement tools that, when used, provide consistent and comprehensive focus as everyone is measuring and reporting the same outcomes in the same way. Aim: This project aims to develop a Core Outcome Set for Nurse Wellbeing. Objectives: Produce a list of potential wellbeing outcomes and help text to describe them in that are clear and meaningful for nurses [PPI panel] Develop a consensus between nurses and nurse wellbeing experts on a core outcome set for nurse wellbeing [Delphi Study] Identify and assess for quality measurement instruments for the core outcome set for nurse wellbeing identified by the Delphi study [Critical Literature Review] Select measurement tools for the identified core outcome set and agree on a final Core Outcome Set for Nurse Wellbeing [PPI panel and Study Advisory Group]. Implications and Impact: A Core Outcome Set for Nurse Wellbeing developed by nursing and nurse wellbeing experts will provide researchers and those undertaking governance with evidence-based and meaningful tools with which to evaluate wellbeing interventions. This study is registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET Initiative) database https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2433 Publiations The Mental Health of Medical Students: Supporting Wellbeing in Medical Education | Oxford Academic ( oup.com ) https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21177

Dr Naomi Klepacz & Professor Jane Ball (School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton) < Back Addressing underlying workforce challenges is essential to meet the nation’s mental health care needs Mental Health Dr Naomi Klepacz & Professor Jane Ball (School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton) What is it like to be part of the mental health nursing workforce? We argue that it is only by understanding the reality of the job – its highs and its lows – that we will be able to grow the mental health workforce and hold on to experienced nurses needed to deliver care well. Demand for mental health services is at an all-time high, yet many people cannot access vital services and face long waits for treatment ( 1) . Nurses comprise one-in-three of the NHS mental health workforce (2) . They are fundamental to providing mental health services and a positive patient experience. However, mental health nursing vacancies represent a third of all nursing vacancies (3) , and while there has been a welcome increase in the number of mental health nurses in recent years, the rate of increase still falls behind that seen in adult and children’s nursing (2) . There are also significant regional differences in mental health nurse staffing that seem disconnected from the level of demand for services (2) . The bottom line is that both now and, in the future, we need more nurses working in mental health – which means expanding supply and ensuring we have the conditions needed to retain the experienced staff we already have. The NHS Long Term workforce plan proposes an investment in expanding training places by 2028/29, with a promised increase of 38% for mental health nursing (4) . A substantial change, but lower than that promised to other fields of nursing. Research has demonstrated the link between nurse wellbeing and patient experience of care, staff and patient safety, sickness absence, job satisfaction and leads to staff leaving the workforce (5) . Physical or mental health, burnout or exhaustion currently follow retirement as the top reason nurses leave the profession (6) . The 2022 NHS Staff Survey reports that 49% of mental health nurses felt unwell because of work-related stress in the last 12 months, 61% came to work despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties, 45% reported often or always finding their work emotionally exhausting, and 28% experienced physical violence from a patient or service user in the last 12 months. In addition, 70% work additional unpaid hours over and above their contracted hours. Therefore, understanding the working lives and wellbeing of the mental health nursing workforce is critical for patient care quality, patient nurses, and the growing nursing workforce. Change is urgently needed to meet the nation’s demand for mental health care, but change requires commitment, investment, and, above all, an understanding of, and sensitivity to, the underlying issues. NHS England made a commitment to the growth and development of mental health nursing (7) , and recommendations from this report together with those from the Nuffield Trust (2) say a more accurate and realistic image of the mental health nursing role is needed, with clarity on career options, work setting and the range of people mental health nurses care for, to challenge false stereotypes. In our research into the working lives and wellbeing of nurses in mental health, we have spoken to some truly inspirational nurses who describe working as a mental health nurse as “the best job in the world”. While both patients and nurses place value on therapeutic relationships (8) , the importance of these relationships appears to be poorly understood by those who have not been touched by this experience (9) . Yet the absence of such relationships in mental health care can impact both patients (who may feel more disconnected, alone or vulnerable) and nurses - who are less likely to feel job satisfaction or take pride in the care provided ( 8 , 10 ). Unlike other fields of nursing, mental health nurses argue that it is this patient familiarity, the knowledge and experience gained through patient interaction, rather than treatment-focused ‘skills’ that make mental health nurses unique and indispensable while also making the role of mental health nurses challenging to define and difficult to evidence. Nurses don’t just deliver the intervention; they are the intervention. This is why we are undertaking a study (with funding from the NIHR ARC Wessex Mental Health Hub ) to provide insight into the work lives, wellbeing and working context of nurses in mental health services so that action can be taken (through local changes and/or national policy) to enable a better experience of work. When nurses feel good about the work they do and are given what they need, the benefits – to staff, organisations, and patients – are many. As part of this work, a national survey of the mental health nursing workforce is currently underway. This survey is open to nurses on the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC Register) providing mental healthcare to any patient group, in any setting, and for any health and social care provider. It is completely anonymous and will take 15-20 minutes to complete. This study is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ARC Wessex. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Professor Jane Ball Dr Naomi Klepacz References: 1. Care Quality Commission. Rising demand for mental health care [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-reports/soc202021_01d_mh-care-demand 2. Palmer W, Dodsworth E, Rolewicz L. In train? Progress on mental health nurse education [Internet]. Nuffield Trust; 2023 May. Available from: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/Mental%20Health%20nursing%20update_WEB_FINAL.pdf 3. NHS Digital. NHS Vacancy Statistics England, April 2015 - March 2023, Experimental Statistics [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-vacancies-survey/april-2015---march-2023-experimental-statistics 4. NHS England. NHS Long Term Workforce Plan [Internet]. 2023 Jun. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/nhs-long-term-workforce-plan-v1.2.pdf 5. Maben J, Adams M, Peccei R, Murrells T, Robert G. Patients’ experiences of care and the influence of staff motivation, affect and well-being. NIHR; 6. Nursing & Midwifery Council. 2023 NMC Registere Leavers Survey (Summary Report) [Internet]. Nursing & Midwivery Council; 2023 May [cited 2023 Jul 10] p. 1–36. Available from: https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/data-reports/may-2023/annual-data-report-leavers-survey-2023.pdf 7. Health Education England. Commitment and Growth: advancing mental health nursing now and for the future [Internet]. Health Education England; 2022 Apr p. 37. Available from: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Commitment%20and%20Growth%20Advancing%20Mental%20Health%20Nursing%20Now%20and%20for%20the%20Future.pdf 8. Simpson A, Hannigan B, Coffey M, Barlow S, Cohen R, Jones A, et al. Recovery-focused care planning and coordination in England and Wales: a cross-national mixed methods comparative case study. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(147). 9. Clarke L. The therapeutic relationship and Mental Health Nursing: it is time to articulate what we do! J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2012;19:839–43. 10. Coffey M, Hannigan B, Barlow S, Cartwright M, Cohen R, Faulkner A, et al. Recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination in acute inpatient mental health settings: a cross national comparative mixed methods study. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(115). Previous Next

e3705a45-1f6d-4b9b-9466-a536d5b062ff COMPLETED: Shift Pattern Feasibility Feasibility of collecting and using nursing shift patterns data in acute, community and mental health wards Principal Investigator: Dr Chiara Dall’Ora Team members: Dr Chiara Dall'Ora (Senior Research Fellow in Nursing Workforce, School of Health Sciences, University Of Southampton), Professor Peter Griffiths (Chair of Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton), Ms Nicky Sinden (Head of Nursing Workforce at Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust), Dr Sarah Williams (Associate Director of Research & Improvement, and Academy Lead at Solent NHS Trust), Ms Catherine Smith (Associate Director Workforce Research and Innovation, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust), Professor Jane Ball (Deputy Head of School (Research & Enterprise), School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton), Dr David Culliford (Senior Medical Statistician, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton), Mr Anthony Austin, PPI contributor Start: 1 October 2020 Ended: 31 December 2022 Partners: University of Southampton, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Solent NHS Trust, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. UNISON, Royal College of Nursing Lay summary Nurses and care assistants form the largest group of NHS staff. Most work in services that provide care across 24 hours of the day. Research indicates that the organisation of nursing shift patterns might affect the productivity of health services. The introduction of long shifts in nursing was offered as a strategy to maintain service levels while eliminating overlaps. However, research has found that long shifts are associated with higher rates of sickness and poorer patient care. So far, there has been little research exploring individual factors influencing shift work experiences among nurses, and research has been largely confined to acute hospitals. What did we learn/find out? Working long shifts (12-h or longer) leads to more burnout for nursing staff Having little choice around shift patterns leads to more nursing burnout Nurses working 12-h shifts reported lower choice around shift patterns than nurses working 8-h shifts When wards in Mental Health and community hospitals operated with high proportions of long shifts, there were higher rates of patient incidents This was particularly the case for self-harm incidents and incidents of patient disruptive behaviour What difference can this new knowledge make? It will help nurse managers and those in charge of creating nursing rotas It will help nurses working in inpatient settings choose their shift patterns It will keep patients safer because they will be cared for by nurses who are less tired Why is this important for patients, health and care providers and policy makers ? Nursing burnout is at an all time high, and we provided evidence that can help alleviate burnout Improving patient safety is of paramount importance for any health organisation, and our findings support changes to work organisation to improve patient safety What we are going to be doing next? We will keep disseminating our findings by publishing further papers We are now co-developing feasible changes to shift patterns with nursing staff and their managers as part of our new project We have applied for further funding to maximise analysis of datasets we have created as part of this study Publications https://human-resources-health.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12960-022-00731-2 Shift work characteristics and burnout among nurses: cross-sectional survey | Occupational Medicine | Oxford Academic https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2023/6626585 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocn.16974

Listen to the issues and opinions around health and care Podcasts If you want to know more about the research we do and some of the issues and ethical considerations around health an care we have a series of podcasts which often explore issues is greater depth. Often you will be able to hear from different voices in the community who can provide a fresh perspective on conditions or experiences of health and care in different settings. Sam Belfrage a PhD Student with ARC Wessex has produced a series of SIX podcasts with patient experts and people with life experience of health conditions. The Power of Empowerment series looks at many aspects of health and care Episode 1 Long term conditions Episode 2 Research and co-production Episode 3 Pregnancy, birth & beyond Episode 4 Moving from child to adult services Episode 5 Chronic Pain: Patient & Practitioner Episode 6 Reflections on empowerment

2eeccab4-e624-4137-9443-6893d09b0589 COMPLETED: Change in treatment burden among people with multimorbidity: Protocol of a follow up survey and development of efficient measurement tools for primary care Principal Investigator: Professor Simon Fraser Start Date: 01 October 2020 End Date: 30 September 2024 Background Treatment burden is the effort required of patients to look after their health and the impact this has on their functioning and wellbeing. It is likely treatment burden changes over time as circumstances change for patients and health services. However, there are a lack of population-level studies of treatment burden change and factors associated with this change over time. Furthermore, there are currently no practical screening tools for treatment burden in time-pressured clinical settings or at population level. This is a three-year follow-up study of a cross-sectional survey of 723 people with multimorbidity (defined as three or more long-term conditions; LTCs) registered at GP practices in in Dorset, England. The survey collected information on treatment burden (using the 10-item Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and a novel single-item screening tool), sociodemographics, medications, LTCs, health literacy and financial resource, as at baseline. Descriptive statistics were used to compare change in treatment burden since the baseline survey in 2019 and associations of treatment burden change were assessed using regression methods. Diagnostic test accuracy metrics were used to evaluate the single-item treatment burden screening tool using the MTBQ as the gold-standard. Routine primary care data (including demographics, medications, LTCs, and healthcare usage data) were extracted from medical records for consenting participants. A forward-stepwise, likelihood-ratio logistic regression model building approach was used in order to assess the utility of routine data metrics in quantifying treatment burden in comparison to self-reported treatment burden using the MTBQ. What we found Out •Among over 800 people aged 55 or older, living with multiple long-term conditions across Dorset, high treatment burden was common (about a fifth of all survey respondents) •Making lifestyle changes and arranging appointments were particular sources of difficulty. Having limited health literacy and experiencing financial difficulty were strongly associated with greater treatment burden. Having more conditions and more prescribed regular medications were also associated. •A single-item treatment burden measure was only moderately good at discriminating between high and non-high burden. •Among 300 of these people who responded to a follow up survey after an average of two and a half years, about a third experienced an increase in treatment burden. This was linked to having more than five long-term conditions and living more than ten minutes from the GP, particularly for people with limited health literacy. •A slightly revised single-item measure still only performed moderately, so it needs more development before being used in general practice. •Using data from participants’ GP records also only performed moderately at reflecting high treatment burden, so further development is needed to use routine health records to identify those at risk of high treatment burden. What difference will this knowledge make? •Given the high prevalence of high treatment burden in people living with multiple long-term conditions, healthcare professionals can legitimately engage with patients on this issue to recognise and seek to minimise avoidable burden. •Health systems (including Integrated Care Boards/Systems) should include consideration of treatment burden in policies and in service design and commissioning, aiming for ‘minimally disruptive medicine’. •Healthcare professionals can anticipate that treatment burden tends to worsen over time in a significant proportion of people living with multiple long-term conditions. •Further development of the short treatment burden questionnaire is underway in a separate NIHR-SPCR-funded study and could be introduced in primary care if it performs better. •Identifying ‘burden’ in data will be investigated in much more detail in a further NIHR-funded study Why is this important for patients, health and care providers and policy makers ? •Factors such as improving access to primary care, particularly for those living further away from services, may reduce treatment burden. •Different modes of health service delivery to specifically meet the needs of those patients more likely to feel overburdened may be needed •Improving health literacy should be an important goal for the health system •Overburdened patients may be more likely to struggle with adherence to self-management •Being overburdened may result in greater use of unscheduled care. This is a priority for the NHS and the link needs further investigation In related work we published a paper on a systematic review of system factors influencing treatment burden, led by a Southampton MSc Public Health student. This has identified important gaps in the evidence map for treatment burden. Providers and policy makers need to recognise the financial and administrative burden for patients and the lack of evidence on this: doi.org Influence of health-system change on treatment burden: a systematic review Background Treatment burden is a patient-centred concept describing the effort required of people to look after their health and the impact this has on their functioning and wellbeing. High treatment burden is more likely for people with multiple long-term conditions (LTCs). Validated treatment burden measures exist, but have not been widely used in practice or as research outcomes. Aim To establish whether changes in organisation and delivery of health systems and services improve aspects contributing to treatment burden for people with multiple LTCs. Design and setting Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of system-level interventions on at least one outcome relevant to previously defined treatment burden domains among adults with ≥2 LTCs. Method The Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for terms related to multimorbidity, system-level change, and treatment burden published between January 2010 and July 2021. Treatment burden domains were derived from validated measures and qualitative literature. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology was used to synthesise results and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (version 2) tool. Results The searches identified 1881 articles, 18 of which met the review inclusion criteria. Outcomes were grouped into seven domains. There was some evidence for the effect of system-level interventions on some domains, but the studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity, limiting the synthesis of results. Some concern over bias gave low confidence in study results. Conclusion System-level interventions may affect some treatment burden domains. However, adoption of a standardised outcome set, incorporating validated treatment burden measures, and the development of standard definitions for care processes in future research would aid study comparability. What are we going to be doing next? Several related studies are already underway: In the NIHR-funded MELD-B study, more in-depth exploration of the experience of living with multiple long-term conditions is underway. This study is exploring in depth the representation of the work/burden in electronic health records. See short animation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mZptrMAapY In the NIHR SPCR-funded SPELL study, a Short Treatment Burden Questionnaire is being developed and tested, building on our findings. https://spell.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/ Work has been instigated with the Dorset Public Health team and ICS to explore the value of adding treatment burden concepts to frailty indicators to identify people who might benefit from a ‘carousel clinic’ which supports people with frailty/prefrailty in various ways. This work is ongoing With some additional ARC funding we are working with care coordinators in primary care in Southampton to take forward the learning from this study and the MELD-B study ( https://www.meldbstudy.org.uk/ ) to support and enhance their work with people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): Https://www.arc-wx.nihr.ac.uk/research-areas-list/avoiding-care-escalations-through-targeted-care-coordination-for-people-with-multiple-long-term-conditions-%E2%80%93-a-knowledge-mobilisation-project Publications https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2020.0883 https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0103 Simon Fraser delivered a BJGP podcast on this work which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLqrp4HOb7s

PPI/E Strategy 2021-2024 summary report The page has a summary of our strategy for involving people in our research - sometimes this is referred to as Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement. We have created a separate page with a detailed version of our strategy which can be used by screen readers, and there is also a glossary to explain some of the language used in the documents. (it might be useful to have this open in another TAB on your browser for reference). If there is something not quite right then email us at arcwessex@soton.ac.uk for help or any comments. Involving the Public in our Research Patients and the public are at the heart of our vision to improve the health and well-being of people across Wessex[i]. The knowledge, experiences and support of patients and the public are essential to ensure that our research goals and solutions are relevant, prevent waste, and bring the greatest possible benefits to society. We use the terms involvement[ii] and engagement[iii] to describe activities that aim to prioritise the public voice in our health and social care research. We aim to deliver high quality public involvement and engagement for health and social care. his document summarises our ambitions and gives a few examples of activities we will deliver in our first year (April 2021-March 2022). We listen to voices relevant to our research priorities that reflect the diversity of the local population – ensuring the underserved[iv] have a voice. This year we will: Work with the leads of each project starting in 2021 to identify who is underserved in the context of each project. We will prioritise the voices of these underserved groups in our involvement activities. Publish guidance documents on how to improve virtual meeting accessibility. Inclusive Opportunities We have a culture that respects different perspectives, values contributions and supports mutually respectful and productive relationships. This year we will: Work with our public members to develop and trial approaches to blending face-to-face and virtual activities as we adapt to changing social distancing restrictions. Develop induction materials that outline the support structures available in ARC Wessex for involvement and engagement activities. Working Together We capture, monitor and share our learnings. This year we will: Adapt an involvement impact tool so we can use it to monitor the impact of our activities. Impact We provide health research communities of Wessex (including public) adequate PPI/E training, support and learning opportunities. This year we will: Develop a course supporting the public with their confidence contributing to virtual meetings. Evaluate a pilot mentorship scheme, where we paired new PhD students with a public partner to provide mentorship in involvement and engagement. Deliver a training course focused on skills for public involvement to our researchers. Support and Learning We use innovative approaches and good communication to stimulate knowledge-of, and interest-in, our research. This year we will: Collect a baseline measurement (ie starting position) of how well feedback processes are embedded in our involvement and engagement activities. This will include understanding how regularly public members are told what difference their contributions have made to research. Communications We involve the public at strategic and operational levels. This year we will: Involve the public in decisions about which projects we will fund this year. Collect feedback from our public members who have strategic positions to understand if they feel heard and included in decision-making. Governance [ii] Public involvement activities describe activities where research is carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them. [iii] Engagement activities describe activities where information and knowledge about research is provided to and shared with the public. [iv] Underserved is the term we have chosen to use to describe people who are less well included in research. It is important to recognise that underserved groups are context-specific. There is no single, simple definition to describe all underserved groups. Want to know more? You can read our full strategy - or download a version as a file. Have questions or comments? Email ppiesupport @uhs.nhs.uk

Web-based Implementation Toolkit (WIT) Quick links: Project Outputs Buy-in and Engagement Fit with Health and Social Care Systems Alignment with Health and Social Care Priorities Outcomes and Impact Adoption and Spread Checklist, webinar and resources Quick links: Project Outputs This Web-based Implementation Toolkit (WIT) is designed to be easy to use and intended for a variety of users, projects and settings where implementation is planned or being considered. Implementation is the attempt to introduce a new intervention, innovation or policy developed through research and apply it to health and/or social care and the third sector. WIT provides you with an interactive Implementation Wheel, Checklist and bite-size Webinars (average 10 minutes) to support you through your implementation journey. Who is WIT for? WIT recognises the need to provide freely available, accessible and simple to use tools that focus on key considerations at the outset of a project. WIT was co-produced through interactive workshops with health and social care professionals, third sector organisation professionals, academics and members of the public. Anyone looking to understand more about or engage in implementation. Why use WIT? When to use WIT From the beginning – when first considering and designing a project Throughout all stages of your implementation journey and beyond To guide you through implementation considerations for your project There are six wheel domains to help you consider what is required for implementation. Click on a domain segment to find out more. Adoption and Spread Project Outputs Buy-in and Engagement Fit with Health and Social Care Systems Alignment with Health and Social Care Priorities Outcomes and Impact How to use WIT Use the interactive Implementation Wheel, Checklist and bitesize Webinars to support you on your implementation journey and beyond. The six Wheel domains can be used iteratively, and in no particular order. The Checklist is downloadable and consists of the same domains as the Wheel. You can use this to complete with your team and check progress of your implementation journey. The Webinars , approximately 10 minutes duration, provide sessions relating to the six Wheel and Checklist domains and also to an introduction to implementation and implementation theories and frameworks. Hover on keywords to see definitions Other words in bold represent key learning points The Resources section provides suggestions for other resources you may find helpful. implementation Implementation is the attempt to introduce a new intervention, innovation or policy developed through research and apply it to health and/or social care and the third sector. Feedback via our short survey If you fulfil the criteria on the attached poster , Researchers from the School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton/NIHR ARC Wessex would like you to test WIT by providing feedback via a short survey . Or alternatively scan the QR code. Thank you. Contact us If you have any questions about WIT, please contact: C.F.Brooks@soton.ac.uk Disclaimer The development of WIT has been supported by the NHS Insight Prioritisation Programme (NIPP). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this website. How to cite Brooks, C.F., Lund, S., Kryl, D., and Myall M. (2023) Web-based Implementation Toolkit (WIT). University of Southampton. Available at: www.arc-wx.nihr.ac.uk/web-implementation-toolkit Accessibility We are committed to providing a website that is accessible to as many people as possible. We are actively working to increase the accessibility and usability of the website.

Data Sets Machine learning methodologies are increasingly popular in health care research. This shift to integrated data science approaches necessitates professional development of the existing health care data analyst workforce. To enhance a smooth transition, educational resources need to be developed. Barriers to accessing real healthcare datasets, vital for health care data analyses methodologies training purposes, include financial, ethical and patient confidentiality concerns. Synthetic datasets mimicking real-world complexities offer a simpler solution. On this page, we present a synthetic dataset which mirrors routinely collected primary care data on heart attack and stroke among the adult population. The data incorporates much of the practical challenges encountered in routinely collected primary care systems such as missing data, informative censoring, interactions, variable irrelevance, and noise and can be used for training in methods which handle these difficulties. The intent is for the user to build models of heart/stroke risk using survival-based methodologies. By sharing this synthetic dataset openly, our goal is to contribute a transformative asset for professional training in health and social care data analysis. The dataset covers demographics, lifestyle variables, comorbidities, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, family history of cardiovascular diseases, respiratory functioning, and experience of heart-attack and/or stroke. This initiative aims to bridge the gap in sophisticated healthcare datasets for training, fostering professional development of the health and social care research workforce. Development of this dataset was funded by ARC Wessex and the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). Synthetic Data set CSV cvd_synthetic_dataset_v0.2_metadata.xlsx

de23ed25-467a-496e-b29a-68a949839608 ADOPTED: FLOWS Planning for Frailty: Optimal Health and Social Care Workforce Organisation Using Demand-led Simulation Modelling Principal Investigator: Dr Bronagh Walsh, Associate Professor, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton. Team: Professor Peter Griffiths , School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton: Dr Carole Fogg, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton: Mr Mike Hepburn, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton: Dr Abigail Barkham, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust: Honorary Professor Martin Vernon, Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust: Professor Lee-Ann Fenge, Department of Social Work and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University: Professor Jane Ball, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton: Professor Sally Brailsford, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton: Ms Francesca Lambert, PPI lead, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton. Start: 01/11/2022 End: 31/10/2025 Background: As the population ages, robust workforce planning to meet future demands for health and social care by older people is needed. A lack of evidence in this area has led to a mis-match between the health and social care demand from the ageing population and the current workforce capacity. The proposed study will use demand-led simulation modelling of the workforce required to address the specific challenge of providing health and social care for the growing numbers of older people living with frailty. Aims & Objectives: The aim of the study is to use simulation modelling to explore long-term trends in frailty-related health and social care use in the ageing population and its implications for future workforce size and competencies to support high quality care. The primary objective of this study is the creation of a simulation model that will inform service and workforce planning to meet health and social care needs associated with frailty. Methods: The study will use a System Dynamics design to develop and test the simulation model. Work packages comprise a scoping review, gathering of public and professional perspectives on service provision via a survey and stakeholder engagement activities, and analysis of linked health and social care data, all of which inform the simulation modelling work package and development of a workforce planning toolkit. Timelines for delivery: The scoping review will be completed in year 1. Routine health and social care data specification and extraction will occur in year 1, as will service mapping and classification and survey preparation. Survey data collection and analysis will occur in year 2. Simulation modelling will commence in year 2, with validation, sensitivity analyses and scenario modelling in year 3. Development of workforce guidelines and toolkit will occur in. year 3 Stakeholder engagement, including patient public involvement, will run throughout the study, reviewing study results and informing development of the other work packages. Anticipated impact & dissemination: This study will provide new, direct evidence about the impact of frailty on health and social care workforce requirements within the ageing population The improved understanding of workforce requirements offered by this study will inform workforce planning for frailty services across health and social care, ensuring future benefit for patients through provision of timely and appropriate care and a workforce planning toolkit to support local decision-making.

Professor Ruth Bartlett - National lead for DEM-COMM, post-doctoral training scheme for applied dementia researchers across the ARCs < Back Alzheimer's Europe Conference DEM-COMM researchers in Geneva Professor Ruth Bartlett - National lead for DEM-COMM, post-doctoral training scheme for applied dementia researchers across the ARCs DEM-COMM was out in force at the 34th Alzheimer’s Europe conference in Geneva. We weren’t all wearing DEM-COMM emblazoned bobble hats (next time, maybe?) but there were twenty of us, all presenting work, supporting each other, and generally making the most of being at this important annual event. Our headline act was Dr Esther Loseto-Gerritzen from the University of Nottingham, ARC East Midlands. Esther gave her first plenary talk: ‘Online peer support for people with young onset dementia’ in the largest auditorium I’ve ever been in; it was like the United Nations (see photo below). So very well done to Esther. We’re all proud of you and look forward to supporting you in your new role as Junior Board member and representative of the INTERDEM Academy . Other DEM-COMM fellows shared their work in a parallel session or one of the quick oral presentations (5 minutes), or like me, presented a poster. Some people gave two or three presentations - extra brownie points to you guys. Here’s a list of all works in the order they were presented at the conference, followed by a collage of photos of each person giving their talk. Oral presentations Hannah Wheat ‘Findings of the realist mixed methods, longitudinal evaluation of the D-PACT (dementia personalised care team), primary care based, post-diagnostic, dementia care model’. Amirah Akhtar ‘Depression and dementia risk: exploring the impact of cognitive dysfunction during recurrent depression in middle-aged British South Asians: A qualitative study. Orri McDermott ‘Co-working with local Caribbean communities to raise awareness and normalise talking about dementia’. Neil Chadborn ‘Yaad participatory project: exploring memories with South Asian Communities to understand the context of family of care for people with dementia’. Marie Poole ‘Understanding post-diagnostic dementia support through football organisations to provide person-centred, culturally appropriate support for underserved communities’. James Faraday ‘Better mealtimes for people living with dementia: working with care homes to share good practice’. Rasa Mikelyte ‘Inclusion from the start: co-development and application of a priority setting method for dementia care research’. Emma Elliot ‘Physical activity interventions for hospitalised patients with dementia: systematic review’. Orri McDermott ‘Lived experience of advance care planning and shared decision making’. Rasa Mikelyte ‘Co-designing an easy-read measure of care-related quality of life: reflections on involving people living with dementia and their supporters’. Megan Rose Readman ‘Understanding the experience of hearing loss for people living with lewy body or parkinson’s disease dementia. Emmanuel S. Nwofe ‘DEM-SAFE: co-designing information campaigns to promote brain health and reduce dementia risk in south Asian and African Caribbean communities in the UK’. Amirah Akhtar ‘DEM-SAFE: Living well with dementia for south Asian and African Caribbean communities in the UK’. Posters Jiamin Du ‘Prevalence and correlates of neuro-psychiatric symptoms in individuals referred to a memory clinic, and the distress experienced by their caregivers’. Hannah Wheat ‘Triadic communication during dementia care: a conversation analytical study. Megan Polden ‘Music Make Us! The impact of singing and dancing interventions on people living with dementia’. Tamara Backhouse ‘How can we improve personal care assistance for people living with dementia to reduce refusals of care? A realist synthesis Juanita Hoe ‘Risk Assessment in people living with dementia: a systematic review’. Esther Loseto-Gerritzen ‘Online peer support for people living with dementia: a scoping review’. Hannah Wheat ‘Supporting dementia support workers to adapt to their role within a primary care setting: what works, for whom and in what circumstances’. Ruth Bartlett ‘Building capacity in applied dementia research’. Chris Poyner ‘Personalising domiciliary dementia care via co-designed computational matching: a study protocol’. Ilianna Lourida ‘Data-driven discovery of associations between prescribed medication and dementia risk: a systematic review’. Emmanuel S. Nwofe ‘Dementia risk factors and brain health: a scoping review of interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among minority ethnic populations in OECD countries’. Thanks to Sarah Smith for darting around the venue to take these shots, great job! Previous Next

a7ea3c51-ca08-45ba-a500-e478bca6eb43 COMPLETED: Motivating and sustaining engagement of young people in improving their health and that of their communities Prinicpal Investigator: Professor Mary Barker Team: Kathryn Woods-Townsend, University of Southampton, James Toop, Bite Back 2030, Matthew Ryan, University of Southampton, Joanna Sofaer, University of Southampton, Pathik Pathak, University of Southampton Start Date: 1 April 2023 End Date: 30 September 2024 Background Calls by young people for increased involvement in decisions about their health and futures are echoed by WHO and UNICEF. These reflect threats to their health from inequalities and climate change, exacerbated by COVID-19. To be “architects of their own future” and have decision-making power, young people need training and opportunities to build confidence, and structures and processes that allow them to be involved in decision making. Aims We aim to explore how best to engage and maintain engagement of young people in these activities with a view to improving their health and well-being and that of their communities Our specific objectives are to: develop and test a training course for young people in skills to support participatory action research into health and well-being; test the effectiveness of arts-based approaches in engaging young people in health improvement; understand how to create a reliable, scalable and sustainable model for effective youth activism; evaluate democratic innovations to engage young people in decision making processes to influence health policy. What did we find out? Through our project we found that young people can meaningfully participate in decision making on topics that are important to them. During the year young people were engaged in two separate ways: Firstly, BiteBack 2030’s youth advocacy programme was analysed and essential components of its success extracted. Those factors included establishing open two-way channels for communication, Working to create an environment where young people’s and staff views are equally valued, Supporting staff to develop excellent facilitation skills, Investing in young people’s skills, Campaigning on issues that young people feel are important and current and Reviewing success and challenges of each campaigns and adapt activities in response. Secondly, young people were successfully trained in research skills, advocacy and democracy during a 12-week Young Researcher Training Programme. The training programme allowed young people to investigate a health topic that was important to them and collect data from their peers and community. Their projects ranged from looking at exam stress, vaping, benefits of youth participation, to women’s health issues, failures in the PSHE curriculum and vaccine hesitancy. The results from their research went towards creating a set of health recommendations that young people felt should be prioritised for the improved health and wellbeing of young people in Southampton. A Youth Jury was held in July 2024 where the recommendations were refined based on collaboration with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care Partnership. The 12 amended recommendations formed the basis of a manifesto for health which included the following points to be addressed by decision makers: 1.Expand Extra-Curricular Wellness Activities. 2. Improve our methods of handling young people’s mental health by creating accessible services. 3. Respond to Vaping Proactively. 4. Deliver a comprehensive digital health platform for young people. 5.Review the PSHE Curriculum. 6. Encourage the mixed teaching of Sexual and Reproductive Education (SRE) . 7. Cultural & Religious Sensitivity . 8. Information to Parents. 9.Deliver Youth Engagement. 10. Diversify and Expand Work Experience and Financial Support for Prospective Professionals. 11. Establish Panels to Honestly Inform Young People about NHS Careers. 12. Produce Youth- Led Marketing. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the training programme, Youth Jury and Assembly at engaging young people in decision making and the resultant responses from decision makers is still ongoing. Final results will be available from spring 2025. You can see Young People talking about their recommendations here What did we do with this Knowledge? • The recommendations created by the young people within the manifesto for health were presented to the Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) and wider stakeholders in health and wellbeing at the Hampshire and IoW ICP Youth Assembly on 13th November 2024. An action plan was drawn up in collaboration with decision makers to implement the recommendations in practice. These recommendations will go towards informing the delivery of health services for young people In Hampshire and the IoW. • The criteria for a successful youth advocacy/ activism programme provide BiteBack with evidence-based conclusions that they can use to replicate and grow the success of their programmes. The links between youth health and wellbeing and participation in activism programmes was highlighted The findings from this investigation also went towards informing how we run the Young Researcher Training Programme to make sure young people are getting the most out of the experience for their health, wellbeing and future quality of life. See the BiteBack poster image BiteBack poster[83] .png Download PNG • 1.08MB BiteBack visual report (PDF What Next? The learning from this project will go towards informing how future YRTP sessions will be structured and run. For example, the advocacy and links to decision making in this project will be replicated in the next iteration. The next iteration of YRTP begins in December 2025, with a focus on developing a Southampton Youth Voices service. The learnings from BiteBack’s youth activism programme will aid other youth organisations to successfully engage young people in improving their health. This work adds to the growing body of research around the importance of youth participation and its long-term health and wellbeing benefits. Talitha McCleery, 17, took part in the programme and said: "Young people want to and deserve to be, involved in decisions that impact their health and futures. We believe that the people who sit in positions of power must prioritise consulting with young people if they want their decisions to have real change and make a positive impact." Libby Tickner, 17, who also took part, added: "We must all work together - school boards, local government, local charities and national non-governmental organisations - to ensure no opportunity is left wasted." Source: Hampshire youth assembly shares health and wellbeing ideas | Daily Echo

87b19b27-d8c8-4f33-9da0-73ea106dac3c COMPLETED: Mental health Burden of Increased Living costs: Local Support (My BILLS) Principal investigators: Dr. Dianna Smith, Associate Professor, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton and Dr Thomas Richardson, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Southampton. Co-investigator: Prof Nisreen Alwan, Associate Professor in Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Southampton. Partners: Southern Health Foundation NHS trust, iTalk (Hampshire IAPT), Talking Change (Portsmouth IAPT Solent NHS Trust), Southampton Citizens Advice Bureau, Portsmouth Citizens Advice Bureau, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, Hampshire County Council. Starts: 01/01/2023 Ends: 30/09/2024 Background: Poverty can have a significant impact on health. There is lots of research which suggests that being in debt or struggling to pay the bills can lead to poor mental health such as problems with depression and anxiety. There is currently a cost-of-living crisis with record inflation and energy bills. Aim: This research will analyse the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on the mental health of the adults in Hampshire. It will also identify the best pathways for support for people struggling with both mental health and financial problems. Design & Methods: There will be several methods used here. We will interview staff at local financial advice and NHS mental health services for their views. We will use existing data from the NHS and other services about demand for services and if this has changed over recent months with the cost-of-living crisis. We will also interview patients with lived experience about their views. We will conduct new questionnaire-based survey to try to look at the impact of financial problems on mental health over time. Finally, we will look at what the existing research tells us about how the relationship between financial problems and mental health, and if this impacts certain groups of people more strongly than others. Patient & Public Involvement: We will involve those with lived experience and members of the public in the design of our research. They will also form part of a steering group to oversee our work. Finally, they will help us to develop recommendations about local support and how to share the outcomes of our research. Dissemination: We will write up our findings in academic journals and present them at conferences. We will present our finding to the public at an open free event. We will also have a free report summarising the findings, and flyers and videos summarising the research in an accessible way. What did we find out? We found that people who were more worried about the cost of living had worse symptoms of depression and anxiety. However, these worries did not cause their symptoms to get better or worse over time. Interviews with staff and service users showed that financial stress caused feelings of hopelessness and frustration. Many people found it harder to get the health care they needed because of money problems. The cost-of-living crisis also increased pressure on the NHS and its staff. Those who are having therapy for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder don’t benefit as much if they live in a deprived neighborhood. • An analysis of 86,000 NHS Talking Therapies referrals from 2021 to 2023 is ongoing. What did we do with this Knowledge? Qualitative interviews have given practical suggestions to improve the link between financial and money advice support locally. • Quantitative analysis is ongoing and will be published soon. What are we doing next? Conference presentations 1 Paper published 3 papers under review. Working on submitting several other papers from the findings for publication. Feeding back results to stakeholders. Publications Neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation associated with poorer psychological therapy outcomes for PTSD: an audit of a single NHS Talking Therapies (IAPT) service | the Cognitive Behaviour Therapist | Cambridge Core