Browsing by Person "Stuart, Kim"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Person-centered healthcare practice in a pandemic context: An exploration of people's experience of seeking healthcare support
(Frontiers, 2021-09-09) Curnow, Eleanor; Tyagi, Vaibhav; Salisbury, Lisa; Stuart, Kim; Melville-Jóhannesson, Barbara; Nicol, Kath; McCormack, Brendan; Dewing, Jan; Magowan, Ruth; Sagan, Olivia; Bulley, Catherine
Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic increased pressure upon healthcare resources resulting in compromised health services. Enforced national lockdown led to people being unable to access essential services in addition to limiting contact with social support networks. The novel coronavirus, and subsequent condition known as long covid were not well-understood and clinicians were not supported by existing guidelines or pathways. Our study explored people's experiences of healthcare during this period with a person-centered “lens.”
Support after COVID-19 study: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study to develop recommendations for practice
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2022-08-26) Bulley, Catherine; Tyagi, Vaibhav; Curnow, Eleanor; Nicol, Kath; Salisbury, Lisa; Stuart, Kim; McCormack, Brendan; Magowan, Ruth; Sagan, Olivia; Dewing, Jan
Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people’s experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified. Design: A two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people’s experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams). Setting: Stage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK. Participants: Anyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience. Main outcome measures: Descriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data. Results: Of those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1–54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied ‘other’ symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations. Conclusions: Recommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.