BackgroundmHealth holds the potential to educate rural communities in developing countries such as Malawi, on issues which over-burdened and under staffed health centres do not have the facilities to address. Previous research provides support that mHealth could be used as a vehicle for health education campaigns at a community level; however the limited involvement of potential service users in the research process endangers both user engagement and intervention effectiveness.MethodsThis two stage qualitative study used participatory action research to inform the design and development of an mHealth education intervention. First, secondary analysis of 108 focus groups (representing men, women, leadership, elderly and male and female youth) identified four topics where there was a perceived health education need. Second, 10 subsequent focus groups explored details of this perceived need and the acceptability and feasibility of mHealth implementation in Chikwawa, Malawi.ResultsStage 1 and Stage 2 informed the design of the intervention in terms of target population, intervention content, intervention delivery and the frequency and timing of the intervention. This has led to the design of an SMS intervention targeting adolescents with contraceptive education which they will receive three times per week at 4 pm and will be piloted in the next phase of this research.ConclusionThis study has used participatory methods to identify a need for contraception education in adolescents and inform intervention design. The focus group discussions informed practical considerations for intervention delivery, which has been significantly influenced by the high proportion of users who share mobile devices and the intervention has been designed to allow for message sharing as much as possible.

Objectives1.5 million people in the UK have mild to moderate learning disabilities. STIs and bloodborne viruses (BBVs) are over-represented in people experiencing broader health inequalities, which include those with mild learning disabilities. Self-managed care, including self-sampling for STIs/BBVs, is increasingly commonplace, requiring agency and health literacy. To inform the development of a partner notification trial, we explored barriers and facilitators to correct use of an STI/BBV self-sampling pack among people with mild learning disabilities.MethodsUsing purposive and convenience sampling we conducted four interviews and five gender-specific focus groups with 25 people (13 women, 12 men) with mild learning disabilities (July–August 2018) in Scotland. We balanced deductive and inductive thematic analyses of audio transcripts to explore issues associated with barriers and facilitators to correct use of the pack.ResultsAll participants found at least one element of the pack challenging or impossible, but welcomed the opportunity to undertake sexual health screening without attending a clinic and welcomed the inclusion of condoms. Reported barriers to correct use included perceived overly complex STI/BBV information and instructions, feeling overwhelmed and the manual dexterity required for blood sampling. Many women struggled interpreting anatomical diagrams depicting vulvovaginal self-swabbing. Facilitators included pre-existing STI/BBV knowledge, familiarity with self-management, good social support and knowing that the service afforded privacy.ConclusionIn the first study to explore the usability of self-sampling packs for STI/BBV in people with learning disabilities, participants found it challenging to use the pack. Limiting information to the minimum required to inform decision-making, ‘easy read’ formats, simple language, large font sizes and simpler diagrams could improve acceptability. However, some people will remain unable to engage with self-sampling at all. To avoid widening health inequalities, face-to-face options should continue to be provided for those unable or unwilling to engage with self-managed care.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) describes activities concerned with safeguarding antibiotics for the future, reducing drivers for the major global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), whereby antibiotics are less effective in preventing and treating infections. Appropriate antibiotic prescribing is central to AMS. Whilst previous studies have explored the effectiveness of specific AMS interventions, largely from uniprofessional perspectives, our literature search could not find any existing evidence evaluating the processes of implementing an integrated national AMS programme from multi-professional perspectives. Methods: This study sought to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme, from multi-professional perspectives. Data collection involved in-depth qualitative telephone interviews with 27 implementation lead clinicians from 14/15 Scottish Health Boards and 15 focus groups with doctors, nurses and clinical pharmacists (n = 72) from five Health Boards, purposively selected for reported prescribing variation. Data was first thematically analysed, barriers and enablers were then categorised, and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as an interpretive lens to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation process. Analysis addressed the NPT questions 'which group of actors have which problems, in which domains, and what sort of problems impact on the normalisation of AMS into everyday hospital practice'. Results: Results indicated that major barriers relate to organisational context and resource availability. AMS had coherence for implementation leads and prescribing doctors; less so for consultants and nurses who may not access training. Conflicting priorities made obtaining buy-in from some consultants difficult; limited role perceptions meant few nurses or clinical pharmacists engaged with AMS. Collective individual and team action to implement AMS could be constrained by lack of medical continuity and hierarchical relationships. Reflexive monitoring based on audit results was limited by the capacity of AMS Leads to provide direct feedback to practitioners.

BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) describes activities concerned with safe-guarding antibiotics for the future, reducing drivers for the major global public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), whereby antibiotics are less effective in preventing and treating infections. Appropriate antibiotic prescribing is central to AMS. Whilst previous studies have explored the effectiveness of specific AMS interventions, largely from uni-professional perspectives, our literature search could not find any existing evidence evaluating the processes of implementing an integrated national AMS programme from multi-professional perspectives.Methods This study sought to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation of a national antimicrobial stewardship programme, from multi-professional perspectives. Data collection involved in-depth qualitative telephone interviews with 27 implementation lead clinicians from 14/15 Scottish Health Boards and 15 focus groups with doctors, nurses and clinical pharmacists (n=72) from five Health Boards, purposively selected for reported prescribing variation. Data was first thematically analysed, barriers and enablers were then categorised, and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as an interpretive lens to explain mechanisms affecting the implementation process. Analysis addressed the NPT questions ' which group of actors have which problems , in which domains, and what sort of problems impact on the normalisation of AMS into everyday hospital practice' .ResultsResults indicated that major barriers relate to organisational context and resource availability. AMS had coherence for implementation leads and prescribing doctors; less so for consultants and nurses who may not access training. Conflicting priorities made obtaining buy-in from some consultants difficult; limited role perceptions meant few nurses or clinical pharmacists engaged with AMS.Collective individual and team action to implement AMS could be constrained by lack of medical continuity and hierarchical relationships. Reflexive monitoring based on audit results was limited by the capacity of AMS Leads to provide direct feedback to practitioners.ConclusionsThis study provides original evidence of barriers and enablers to the implementation of a national AMS programme, from multi-professional, multi-organisational perspectives. The use of a robust

We conducted a scoping review with the aim of examining the peer reviewed literature (1970-2020, within OECD countries) that had a primary focus upon types of sexual relationships and associated sexual partners (‘partnerships). Using a systematic search strategy, we examined 56 out of 15,592 papers which detailed types of sexual relationship and associated sexual partners. We found most studies were published within the C21st, with the majority conducted within the USA. Studies used a range of primarily quantitative designs. We examined the number of partnerships noted in included papers; to appraise existing work regarding any partner typologies. We found that studies tended to have a close focus on one kind of relationship/partner (e.g., ‘casual’) rather than explore a large range of diverse partnership types. Subsequently we synthesised the types of relationship/partner detailed within the literature by extracting and interpreting the commonalities and differences among reported partnership types. In this way, we were able to develop a spectrum of eight categories of relationships. These categories were; 1) ‘married/committed’; 2) ‘main partner’/’serious partner’/’stable’ or ‘Long term’; 3) ‘steady’; 4) ‘girlfriend’/’boyfriend’; 5) ‘dating’/’going out’; 6) ‘friends with benefits’; 7) ‘fuck buddies’ and ‘booty calls’; and finally: 8) ‘super casual’, ‘hook-ups’, ‘meets and one night stands’. It is hoped that these synthesised categories will be useful for those wishing to target and tailor sexual health interventions by relationship/partner type, or enhance further theoretical research into romantic and sexual relationships.