Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACTObjectivesThere is an ongoing need to involve and inform the public about data linkage research. Projects at the South East Wales Trials Unit (SEWTU) and Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University have focused on participant and public understanding of, and attitudes towards the use of routine/linked data for research purposes.
ApproachHealthWise Wales is a Welsh national cohort using prospectively collected data linked with NHS records. Face-to-face and online focus groups were conducted to explore the barriers and facilitators to signing up to this project as well as discussing the best way to communicate the technical details of the project. MINIMAL PhD conducted a focus group with care-experienced young people to gather attitudes towards the collection and linkage of child maltreatment data. The Public and Patient Involvement activities of the Building Blocks 2-6 Study included meetings with a young mothers group utilising their skills as advisors on communicating data linkage issues with study participants. These projects have been undertaken independently however comprise the same underlying questions – Do the public understand why routine & linked data is used for research? Will this be a barrier to participating? How can we communicate study design to ensure participants are fully informed? This presentation will summarise the similarities and contrasting attitudes and beliefs emerging from these projects.
ResultsWe have identified similar emerging themes from both the HealthWise Wales focus groups and MINIMAL PhD focus groups. Participants found it challenging to understand the methodology of data linkage and this acted as a barrier to taking part in data linkage projects. Once participants felt fully informed of the method, their concerns around data safety and confidentiality were reduced. Participants required assurances that their data were safe, that they could not be identified, and that researchers can be trusted to access these data before considering the research project in discussion. Participants also discussed the collection of sensitive data from various sources through data linkage, consent issues, and the balance between research risk/benefit for the MINIMAL PhD focus group.
ConclusionThese qualitative studies will contribute to knowledge of how to better inform members of the public about routine / linked data, as it is clear than there remains a lack of understanding of the research conducted in this area, and the importance for researchers to utilise these data. Researchers need to get the communication right in order to be successful at recruiting and retaining participants.

IntroductionFactors that affect public and professionals' attitudes towards the collection and linkage of health and other data have been explored in the literature. Thus far there has been no study exploring attitudes towards the collection of child maltreatment data.
ObjectivesOur aim is to explore attitudes regarding the collection and linkage of maltreatment data for research.
MethodsParticipants included younger mothers, older mothers, care-experienced young people, and professionals who were responsible for recording child maltreatment data. Four face-to-face focus groups were conducted, one with younger mothers (n = 6), one with older mothers (n = 10), and two with care-experienced young people (n = 6 and n = 5). An online focus group was conducted with professionals (n = 10), two of whom additionally participated in telephone interviews. Transcribed audio-recorded data were inductively coded, a portion were double-coded by a second researcher, and thematically analysed.
ResultsThree major themes were identified. The first concerned issues of consent, specifically the conditions for providing consent and factors influencing this. The second concerned trust in data security and validity, the organisations and individuals providing and using the data, and how the information provided shapes attitudes. The third theme explored the benefits of research and the researchers' role in child protection. Participants wanted the choice of providing consent for data collection, especially when consenting on behalf of another, but there were concerns that maltreated children were unidentifiable in anonymised datasets. Care-experienced young people were concerned about data collection from Social Services records due to their sensitivity. There was a general lack of understanding about how research data is viewed and the accuracy of records.
ConclusionsNovel findings in the study were strongly related to the sensitive nature of the topic. The findings may be particularly useful when designing research studies and participant materials and a co-productive approach to this should be taken.

IntroductionResearchers are increasingly using routinely collected data in addition to, or instead of, other data collection methods. The UK government continues to invest in research centres to encourage use of these data, and trials and cohort studies utilise data linkage methods in the follow-up of participants. This does not come without its limitations and challenges, such as data access delays.
ObjectiveThis paper outlines the challenges faced by three projects utilising individual-level routinely-collected linked data for the longer-term follow-up of participants.
MethodsThese studies are varied in design, study population and data providers. One researcher was common to the three studies and collated relevant study correspondence, formal documentary evidence such as data sharing agreements and, where relevant, meeting records to review. Key themes were identified and reviewed by other members of the research teams. Mitigating strategies were identified and discussed with a data provider representative and a broader group of researchers to finalise the recommendations presented.
ResultsThe challenges discussed are grouped into five themes: Data application process; Project timelines; Dependencies and considerations related to consent; Information Governance; Contractual. In presenting our results descriptively we summarise each case study, identify the main cross-cutting themes and consider the potential for mitigation of challenges.
ConclusionsWe make recommendations that identify responsibilities for both researchers and data providers for mitigating and managing data access challenges. A continued conversation within the research community and with data providers is needed to continue to enable researchers to access and utilise the wealth of routinely-collected data available. The suggestions made in this paper will help researchers be better prepared to deal with the challenges of applying for data from multiple data providers.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that around 160,000 households in Britain experience homelessness each year, although no definitive statistics exist. Between March and September 2020, as part of the initial 'Everyone In' government response to COVID-19 in England, 10,566 people were living in emergency accommodation and nearly 18,911 people had been moved into settled accommodation. However, some forms of temporary accommodation may not be suitable as shared facilities make it impossible for people to adhere to government guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: This is parallel group, pilot randomised controlled trial. The target is to recruit three local authorities, each of which will recruit 50 participants (thus a total of approximately 150 participants). Individuals are eligible if they are aged 18 and over, in a single-person homeless household, temporarily accommodated by the LA with recourse to public funds. Participants will be randomised to receive settled accommodation (intervention group) or temporary accommodation (control group). The intervention group includes settled housing such as Private Rented Sector (low and medium support), Social Housing (low and medium support), and Housing First (High support). The control group will maintain treatment as usual. The follow-up period will last 6 months. The primary outcome is to assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention, and acceptability of trial processes against progression criteria laid out in a traffic light system (green: all criteria are met, the trial should progress as designed in this pilot; amber: the majority of criteria are met and with adaptations to methods all criteria could be met; red: the minority of criteria are met and the pilot RCT should not proceed). Secondary outcomes include assessment of completeness of data collection at 3 and 6 months and percentage of participants consenting to data linkage, as well as a process evaluation and economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial will address feasibility questions ...