NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Headline
The study demonstrates caregivers’ preferences for enhanced psychosocial support and the health professionals’ preferences for training to provide support.
Abstract
Background:
Evidence reviews recommend consistent and structured support for children with neurodisability and their caregivers in care pathways in which professionals recommend a gastrostomy feeding tube. To date, and to our knowledge, no research has shown how these recommendations have been implemented.
Objectives:
The objectives were to describe different exemplar models of psychosocial support and provide an estimate of their resources and costs.
Design:
This was a mixed-methods study involving (1) a web-based survey, (2) a qualitative, collective case study of psychosocial support provision in four services and (3) an estimate of costs and preference through a willingness-to-pay study.
Setting:
Four service configurations in different locations in England and Scotland.
Participants:
Participants were staff who responded to a survey (n = 67) and interviewees (staff, n = 58; parents/children, n = 29).
Findings:
Psychosocial support was rarely formalised or documented; it was delivered by different members of the multidisciplinary team, rather than by designated staff, and it was often integrated into appointments dominated by clinical care. Parents expressed different needs for support but reported little opportunity to discuss emotional aspects. Psychologists were not routinely involved and, in general, families were underserved by psychosocial services. Professionals constructed families’ need for psychosocial support in terms of their own roles and the management of risk. Mechanisms for integrating and delivering support were identified, including models of care that linked community and tertiary health services and integrated health and education through pooled budgets. Although generally valued by both staff and parents, peer-to-peer parent support was not consistently offered. Barriers included concerns about confidentiality and appropriately matching parents. Parents participated as members of a feeding committee at one site. Three analytical constructs described the provision of psychosocial support: ‘hidden work’, expressing emotional vulnerability and negotiations around risks and values. The cost-of-support study found that there was a mean of 2.25 appointments (n = 8 parents or carers) over the previous 12 months. The cost of health-care professionals’ time spent on providing psychosocial support ranged from £0.00 to £317.37 per child per year, with an average cost of £76.42, at 2017 prices. In the willingness-to-pay study the median rank of enhanced support, involving the opportunity to see a psychologist and parental peers, was significantly higher than that of usual care (n = 96 respondents, both carers and professionals, who completed rating of the service; p < 0.001).
Limitations:
It proved difficult to disseminate a national survey, which resulted in a small number of returns, and to cost the provision of psychosocial support, which we designated as ‘hidden work’, owing to the lack of recording in clinical systems. Moreover, estimates were based on small numbers.
Conclusions:
Parent interviews and the willingness-to-pay study demonstrated a preference for enhanced psychosocial support. The study suggests that there is a need for services to formally assess families’ needs for psychosocial support to ensure that provision is planned, costed and made explicit in care pathways. Personalised interventions may assist with the targeting of resources and ensuring that there is an appropriate balance in focus on both clinical care and psychosocial support needs in relation to and following treatment.
Future work:
More work is needed to develop tools to assess families’ needs for psychosocial support and the effectiveness of training packages to strengthen team competency in providing support.
Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Contents
- Plain English summary
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Background
- Chapter 2. Research methodology
- Chapter 3. Results of the web-based survey scoping best practice
- Chapter 4. Findings of the collective case study
- Chapter 5. Results of the resource use and willingness to pay for support
- Chapter 6. Discussion
- Integration and theorisation of data
- Support needs of parents
- Reflections on different service configurations in our case study
- Who provides psychosocial support: team members and designated roles?
- Information and resources
- Structures to facilitate peer-to-peer parent support
- Implications for practice and services
- Strengths and limitations of the study
- Implications for future research
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Web-based survey
- Appendix 2. Dissemination log of web-based survey
- Appendix 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Glossary
- List of abbreviations
- List of supplementary material
About the Series
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 14/04/40. The contractual start date was in January 2016. The final report began editorial review in August 2019 and was accepted for publication in March 2020. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Declared competing interests of authors
Diane Sellers reports grants and personal fees from Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition (Trowbridge, UK) and personal fees from Nutricia Global (Danone, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands) outside the submitted work.
Disclaimer
This report contains transcripts of interviews conducted in the course of the research and contains language that may offend some readers.
Last reviewed: August 2019; Accepted: March 2020.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Improving support and planning ahead for older people with learning disabilities and family carers: a mixed-methods study.[Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024]Improving support and planning ahead for older people with learning disabilities and family carers: a mixed-methods study.Ryan S, Wallace L, Tilley E, Tuffrey-Wijne I, Mikulak M, Anderson R, Vaid A, Bebbington P, Keagan-Bull R, Morrissey E, et al. Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Jun; 12(16):1-161.
- Parent-delivered interventions used at home to improve eating, drinking and swallowing in children with neurodisability: the FEEDS mixed-methods study.[Health Technol Assess. 2021]Parent-delivered interventions used at home to improve eating, drinking and swallowing in children with neurodisability: the FEEDS mixed-methods study.Parr J, Pennington L, Taylor H, Craig D, Morris C, McConachie H, Cadwgan J, Sellers D, Andrew M, Smith J, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2021 Mar; 25(22):1-208.
- Improving continence in children and young people with neurodisability: a systematic review and survey.[Health Technol Assess. 2021]Improving continence in children and young people with neurodisability: a systematic review and survey.Eke H, Hunt H, Ball S, Rogers M, Whear R, Allinson A, Melluish J, Lindsay C, Richardson D, Rogers J, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2021 Nov; 25(73):1-258.
- Review Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study[ 2021]Review Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods studyOsborn D, Lamb D, Canaway A, Davidson M, Favarato G, Pinfold V, Harper T, Johnson S, Khan H, Kirkbride J, et al. 2021 Sep
- Review Culturally adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) for African-Caribbean people diagnosed with schizophrenia and their families: a mixed-methods feasibility study of development, implementation and acceptability[ 2018]Review Culturally adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) for African-Caribbean people diagnosed with schizophrenia and their families: a mixed-methods feasibility study of development, implementation and acceptabilityEdge D, Degnan A, Cotterill S, Berry K, Baker J, Drake R, Abel K. 2018 Sep
- Psychosocial support for families of children with neurodisability who have or a...Psychosocial support for families of children with neurodisability who have or are considering a gastrostomy: the G-PATH mixed-methods study
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...