May Carl R, Gravenhorst Katja C, Hillis Alyson, Arber Mick, Chew-Graham Carolyn A, Gallacher Katie I, Mair Frances S, Nolte Ellen, Richardson Alison
Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Jun;13(24):1-120. doi: 10.3310/HGTQ8159.
BACKGROUND: The workload service users and caregivers take on, and their capacity to do this work, when they engage with and participate in different kinds of care is important. It is reflected in policy and practice interventions that identify service users and caregivers as part of a team that consists of informal networks beyond provider organisations and the professionals within them in health and social care. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To synthesise qualitative studies of the lived experience of the work of service user and caregiver engagement in three kinds of conditions: long-term conditions associated with significant disability (Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia); serious relapsing-remitting disease (inflammatory bowel disease, bipolar disorder); and rapidly progressing acute disease (brain cancer, early-onset dementia). DESIGN: Theory-informed qualitative evidence synthesis of primary qualitative studies, qualitative systematic reviews and meta-syntheses. Papers analysed using qualitative attribution analysis, and Event-State Modelling. DATA SOURCES: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus and Social Care Online were searched from January 2010 to April 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Qualitative primary studies, systematic reviews and meta-syntheses where the participants were service users, or caregivers, aged ≥ 18, with one of six index conditions, and which described their lived experiences of care. METHODS: Qualitative evidence synthesis to model core components of service user and caregiver work, and to identify common factors across index conditions, disease trajectories and service contexts. RESULTS: Searches identified 34,787 records. Following deduplication, 13,234 records were assessed for relevance, and after first-stage screening, 7782 records were excluded at this stage, leaving 5452 for further screening, and 279 of these met inclusion criteria and were included in the evidence synthesis. These showed that patients' and caregivers' lived experiences of illness trajectories were shaped by mechanisms of enabling agency (personal capacity, social capital, affective contributions of others), and their degree of existential threat, competence in managing processes of care, and caregiver responses to new responsibilities. Their degree of structural disadvantage was framed in terms of loss of income, employment and housing, and by the presence of stigma, rather than by intersectional position and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence synthesis maps intervention points to support service users and caregivers, and the trajectories of work that frame their effective participation in their care. We identify potential targets for interventions that could support their outward-facing work as they seek to mobilise agency, sustain personal capacity, maintain their social capital and draw on the affective contributions of others. LIMITATIONS: Our pragmatic search strategies led to a maximum variation sample of studies of lived experiences of index conditions but may have missed relevant studies. No papers with an explicit social care focus were discovered for brain cancer, bipolar disorder and inflammatory bowel disease. Most studies were descriptive, and samples and methods were often poorly described. FUTURE WORK: Future research should explore interactions between personal capacity, social capital and affective contributions, in lived experiences of service users and caregivers. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020224787. FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130407) and is published in full in ; Vol. 13, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
背景:服务使用者和照护者在参与不同类型的照护时所承担的工作量以及他们从事这项工作的能力很重要。这反映在政策和实践干预中,这些干预将服务使用者和照护者视为一个团队的一部分,该团队由提供者组织之外的非正式网络以及卫生和社会照护领域内的专业人员组成。 目的:综合关于服务使用者和照护者在三种情况下参与照护工作的生活经历的定性研究:与严重残疾相关的长期病症(帕金森病、精神分裂症);严重的复发缓解型疾病(炎症性肠病、双相情感障碍);以及快速进展的急性疾病(脑癌、早发性痴呆)。 设计:基于理论的对原始定性研究、定性系统评价和元综合的定性证据综合。使用定性归因分析和事件状态建模对论文进行分析。 数据来源:检索了2010年1月至2021年4月的护理及相关健康文献累积索引、EMBASE、MEDLINE、PsycInfo、Scopus和社会照护在线数据库。 研究选择的纳入标准:定性原始研究、系统评价和元综合,其中参与者为年龄≥18岁的服务使用者或照护者,患有六种索引病症之一,并描述了他们的照护生活经历。 方法:进行定性证据综合,以构建服务使用者和照护者工作的核心组成部分模型,并确定索引病症、疾病轨迹和服务背景中的共同因素。 结果:检索到34787条记录。去重后,评估了13234条记录的相关性,在第一阶段筛选后,此阶段排除了7782条记录,剩下5452条进行进一步筛选,其中279条符合纳入标准并被纳入证据综合。这些结果表明,患者和照护者的疾病轨迹生活经历受到赋能机制(个人能力、社会资本、他人的情感贡献)、他们面临的生存威胁程度以及管理照护过程的能力和照护者对新责任的反应的影响。他们的结构性劣势程度体现在收入、就业和住房的丧失以及耻辱感的存在上,而不是体现在交叉地位和社会经济地位上。 结论:本证据综合梳理了支持服务使用者和照护者的干预点以及界定他们有效参与照护的工作轨迹。我们确定了干预的潜在目标,这些目标可以支持他们在寻求调动能动性、维持个人能力、保持社会资本并利用他人的情感贡献时所从事的外向型工作。 局限性:我们务实的检索策略导致了索引病症生活经历研究的最大变异样本,但可能遗漏了相关研究。未发现针对脑癌、双相情感障碍和炎症性肠病且明确聚焦社会照护的论文。大多数研究是描述性的,样本和方法通常描述不佳。 未来工作:未来的研究应探讨个人能力、社会资本和情感贡献在服务使用者和照护者生活经历中的相互作用。 研究注册:本研究已注册为PROSPERO CRD42020224787。 资金:本奖项由国家卫生与保健研究机构(NIHR)卫生和社会照护提供研究计划资助(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR130407),并全文发表于《;第13卷,第24期》。有关更多奖项信息,请访问NIHR资金与奖项网站。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-10-4
Autism Adulthood. 2025-5-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-10-27
Health Technol Assess. 2024-10
Autism Adulthood. 2025-5-28
Autism Adulthood. 2025-5-28