‘Passing Time’: A Qualitative Study of Health Promotion Practices in an Antenatal Clinic Waiting Room

Patient and Clinician Engagement with Health Information in the Primary Care Waiting Room: A Mixed Methods Case Study

“…9 Other topic-focussed studies have employed observations and interviews. 29 Here, to gain a fuller picture, we applied both quantitative and qualitative approaches: i) a questionnaire to provide a quantitative measure of patient self-report of their waiting room preferences, and practices in regards to health information seeking and potential behaviour change, ii) observation of patient engagement with health information in the waiting room, iii) a clinician logbook of patient enquiries about health information from the waiting room, iv) and semi-structured interviews with clinicians to explore their perspectives on waiting room health information. For a critical discussion of the merits, disadvantages and challenges of using mixed methods, refer to Brannen and O’Connell.…”

Do health service waiting areas contribute to the health literacy of consumers? A scoping review

“…Nine articles assessed and/or described the availability of health resources in waiting areas ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ). A variety of assessments were conducted on available items, such as: numerical counts of available resources ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), readability of information ( Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ), categorization of the content or health topics ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), accessibility ( Maskell et al , 2018 ) and reliability or quality of information ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ).…”

“…A variety of assessments were conducted on available items, such as: numerical counts of available resources ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), readability of information ( Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ), categorization of the content or health topics ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), accessibility ( Maskell et al , 2018 ) and reliability or quality of information ( Anon, 2014b ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ). To count or describe what was available in waiting areas, researchers used methods such as direct observation ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ), audit ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ) and/or content analysis ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ). The range of available resources identified in a single waiting area varied considerably from none ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ) to 72 items ( Maskell et al , 2018 ).…”

“…The range of available resources identified in a single waiting area varied considerably from none ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ) to 72 items ( Maskell et al , 2018 ). Available resource types were posters ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), brochures ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ), flyers/handouts ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ), booklets ( Whitehead et al , 2020 ) and signs ( McDonald et al , 2020 ). The majority of articles reported on primary care settings (mostly general practice clinics, n = 5) ( Gignon et al , 2012 ; Anon, 2014b ; Protheroe et al , 2015 ; El-Haddad et al , 2016 ; Maskell et al , 2018 ), while the remainder were hospital outpatient services ( n = 2) ( Rodger et al , 2017 ; McDonald et al , 2020 ) and mixed settings ( n = 2) ( Keyworth et al , 2015 ; Whitehead et al , 2020 ).…”

“…There was limited information regarding the use of available health resources. One study reported they were not used by consumers in hospital antenatal clinics based on direct observation of the waiting area ( Rodger et al , 2017 ) and another reported they were only rarely used in hospital outpatient rehabilitation settings based on direct and video-recorded observations of the waiting area ( McDonald et al , 2020 ). However, one study in a rural general practice clinic found based on direct observation that consumers did browse available health resources, took leaflets and watched the health ‘infotainment’ television programme on display ( Penry Williams et al , 2019 ).…”