Use of serial qualitative interviews to understand patients' evolving experiences and needs | The BMJ http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3702.full.print 1/8This site uses cookies. More info Close By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Interviewing patients over the course of their illness can give a much better picture of their experience than single interviews, but the approach is rarely used. Scott Murray and colleagues explain how to get the most from itLongitudinal qualitative research offers considerable advantages over the more typical single "snapshot" techniques in understanding patients' changing experience of illness. Serial qualitative interviews are a convenient and efficient approach to developing an ongoing relationship between the participant and researcher, thereby facilitating discussion of sensitive and personal issues while also allowing exploration of changing needs and experiences.Serial interview studies are widely used by social science researchers in anthropology, criminology, education, psychology, and social policy.1 2 3 4 5 6 However, they remain underused in medicine.7 Using our experience with the technique, we suggest when researchers might wish to use serial interviews and discuss the methods, the data generated, and how to avoid potential pitfalls. When to use serial interviewsSerial interviews are suitable for research that aims to explore evolving and complex processes or when time is needed to develop a relationship between researcher and participants. We have used the approach to study the changing experiences and needs of people with lung and brain cancers, heart failure, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and spiritual distress, and access to care for south Asian patients at end of life (table⇓).8 9 10 11Others have shown the value of this approach in, for example, understanding childhood asthma, exploring stigma related to HIV infection, reconstruction of self identity after diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome, complex clinician-1
Use of multiperspective qualitative interviews to understand patients' and carers' beliefs, experiences, and needs | The BMJ http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4122.full.print 1/7This site uses cookies. More info Close By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
BackgroundApproximately 10% of the UK population have an unpaid caring role for a family member or friend. Many of these carers make a significant contribution to supporting patients at the end of life. Carers can experience poor physical and psychosocial wellbeing, yet they remain largely unsupported by health and social care services. Despite initiatives for general practices to identify carers and their needs, many remain unidentified. Neither are carers self-identifying and requesting support. This study set out to explore the barriers to, and consider strategies for, identifying carers in primary care.MethodsWe integrated findings from three data sources – a review of the caregiving literature; a workshop with researchers who have undertaken research with those caring at the end of life, and focus groups with carers and health professionals.ResultsThree categories of barrier emerged. 1) Taking on the care of another person is often a gradual process, carers did not immediately identify with being a ‘carer’ – preferring to think of themselves in relational terms to the patient e.g. spouse, sibling, son or daughter. Often it was health and social care professionals who encouraged carers to consider themselves as an unpaid carer. 2) As the cared-for person’s condition deteriorated, the caring role often became all-encompassing so that carers were managing competing demands, and felt unable to look after their own needs as well as those of the cared-for person. 3) There was ambiguity about the legitimacy of carer needs and about the role of the primary health care team in supporting carers, from both the perspective of the carers and the health professionals. GPs were thought to be reactive rather than proactive which discouraged carers from asking for help.ConclusionsThe needs of carers have to be legitimised to ensure primary care staff are proactive in their approach and carers are empowered to utilise the support available. Strategies to identify carers have to be sensitive to the complex dynamics of a caring relationship as well as the primary care context. Identification is a key factor in improving support for carers themselves and to enable them to support the patient.
BackgroundComplex need for patients with a terminal illness distinguishes those who would benefit from specialist palliative care from those who could be cared for by non-specialists. However, the nature of this complexity is not well defined or understood. This study describes how health professionals, from three distinct settings in the United Kingdom, understand complex need in palliative care.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with professionals in primary care, hospital and hospice settings. Thirty-four professionals including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals were recruited in total. Data collected in each setting were thematically analysed and a workshop was convened to compare and contrast findings across settings.ResultsThe interaction between diverse multi-dimensional aspects of need, existing co-morbidities, intractable symptoms and complicated social and psychological issues increased perceived complexity. Poor communication between patients and their clinicians contributed to complexity. Professionals in primary and acute care described themselves as ‘generalists’ and felt they lacked confidence and skill in identifying and caring for complex patients and time for professional development in palliative care.ConclusionsComplexity in the context of palliative care can be inherent to the patient or perceived by health professionals. Lack of confidence, time constraints and bed pressures contribute to perceived complexity, but are amenable to change by training in identifying, prognosticating for, and communicating with patients approaching the end of life.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-017-0259-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
These contrasting illness narratives affect and shape the experiences, thoughts, and fears of patients and their carers in the last months of life. Palliative care offered by generalists or specialists should be provided more flexibly and equitably, responding to the varied concerns and needs of people with different advanced conditions.
This critical review interrogates what we know about how poverty and deprivation impact people at the end of life and what more we need to uncover. While we know that people in economically resource-rich countries who experience poverty and deprivation over the life course are likely to die younger, with increased co-morbidities, palliative care researchers are beginning to establish a full picture of the disproportionate impact of poverty on how, when and where we die. This is something the Covid-19 pandemic has further illustrated. Our article uses a critical social science lens to investigate an eclectic range of literature addressing health inequities and is focused on poverty and deprivation at the end of life. Our aim was to see if we could shed new light on the myriad ways in which experiences of poverty shape the end of people’s lives. We start by exploring the definitions and language of poverty while acknowledging the multiple intersecting identities that produce privilege. We then discuss poverty and deprivation as a context for the nature of palliative care need and overall end-of-life circumstances. In particular, we explore: total pain; choice at the end of life; access to palliative care; and family caregiving. Overall, we argue that in addressing the effects of poverty and deprivation on end-of-life experiences, there is a need to recognise not just socio-economic injustice but also cultural and symbolic injustice. Too often, a deficit-based approach is adopted which both ‘Others’ those living with poverty and renders invisible the strategies and resilience they develop to support themselves, their families and communities. We conclude with some recommendations for future research, highlighting in particular the need to amplify the voices of people with lived experience of poverty regarding palliative and end-of-life care.
Background Specialist palliative care (SPC) providers tend to use the term ‘complex’ to refer to the needs of patients who require SPC. However, little is known about complex needs on first referral to a SPC service. We examined which needs are present and sought the perspectives of healthcare professionals on the complexity of need on referral to a hospice service. Methods Multi-site sequential explanatory mixed method study consisting of a case-note review and focus groups with healthcare professionals in four UK hospices. Results Documentation relating to 239 new patient referrals to hospice was reviewed; and focus groups involving 22 healthcare professionals conducted. Most patients had two or more needs documented on referral (96%); and needs were recorded across two or more domains for 62%. Physical needs were recorded for 91% of patients; psychological needs were recorded for 59%. Spiritual needs were rarely documented. Referral forms were considered limited for capturing complex needs. Referrals were perceived to be influenced by the experience and confidence of the referrer and the local resource available to meet palliative care needs directly. Conclusions Complexity was hard to detail or to objectively define on referral documentation alone. It appeared to be a term used to describe patients whom primary or secondary care providers felt needed SPC knowledge or support to meet their needs. Hospices need to provide greater clarity regarding who should be referred, when and for what purpose. Education and training in palliative care for primary care nurses and doctors and hospital clinicians could reduce the need for referral and help ensure that hospices are available to those most in need of SPC input.
BackgroundQualitative longitudinal research is an evolving methodology, particularly within health care research. It facilitates a nuanced understanding of how phenomena change over time and is ripe for innovative approaches. However, methodological reflections which are tailored to health care research are scarce. This article provides a synthesised and practical account of the advantages and challenges of maintaining regular telephone contact between interviews with participants in a qualitative longitudinal study.MethodsParticipants with metastatic colorectal cancer were interviewed at 3 time points over the course of a year. Half the group also received monthly telephone calls to explore the added value and the feasibility of capturing change as close to when it was occurring as possible.ResultsThe data gathered from the telephone calls added context to the participants’ overall narrative and informed subsequent interviews. The telephone calls meant we were able to capture change close to when it happened and there was a more evolved, and involved, relationship between the researcher and the participants who were called on a monthly basis. However, ethical challenges were amplified, boundaries of the participant/researcher relationship questioned, and there was the added analytical burden.ConclusionsThe telephone calls facilitated a more nuanced understanding of the illness experience to emerge, when compared with the interview only group. The findings suggest that intensive telephone contact may be justified if retention is an issue, when the phenomena being studied is unpredictable and when participants feel disempowered or lack control. These are potential issues for research involving participants with long-term illness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.