A Service Delivery Model for Addressing Activity and Social Participation Needs of People Living with HIV

Abstract

Background: Occupational therapy can contribute to the health and well-being of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who are experiencing health consequences of living long term with this disease. However, there are no comprehensive rehabilitation service delivery models to guide this emerging area of practice. The purpose of this study was to obtain critical feedback about a service delivery model to address the activity and social participation needs of people living with HIV. Method: We developed a service delivery model from a synthesis of the literature. Using a qualitative research design, we conducted individual and focus group interviews with 35 informants from diverse backgrounds and involvement in HIV-related research, service provision, and policymaking to provide critical feedback about the model. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive qualitative methods. Results: The informants identified the strengths and limitations of the model and supports and barriers to its implementation. They highlighted the importance of principle-based services, increasing resources for service navigation, building capacity of rehabilitation services to address the needs of people with HIV, and increasing research and program evaluation targeted to achieving activity and social participation outcomes. Conclusions: The model provides a framework for occupational therapists to design and evaluate services for this population.

Patient and Public Involvement in Occupational Therapy Health Research: A Scoping Review

“…In seven studies, individuals with experience of living with mental illness, or service user experience within mental health were the public collaborators ( Baker & Procter, 2014 ; Birken & Bryant, 2017, 2019; Bryant et al, 2016 ; Hancock et al, 2015 ; Makdisi et al, 2013 ; Williamson & Ennals, 2020 ). Other public collaborators included older adults ( Andonian & MacRae, 2011 ), residents in prison ( Crabtree, Ohm, et al, 2016 ), or persons living with chronic conditions ( Nielsen et al, 2019 ; Restall et al, 2017 ). Public collaborators did not always have patient experience relevant to the study.…”

“…PPI was also reported with respect to involvement in the data collection strategy ( Bryant et al, 2016 ; Makdisi et al, 2013 ): by including public collaborators in interviewer team ( Birken & Harper, 2017 ; Crabtree, Ohm, et al, 2016 ; Hancock et al, 2015 ) or in the collection of data ( Birken & Bryant, 2019 ; Turcotte et al, 2019 ). Involvement in data analysis was reported as, for example, involving public collaborators in interpreting the findings ( Birken & Harper, 2017 ), reviewing the coding scheme ( Restall et al, 2017 ), identifying categories ( Andonian & MacRae, 2011 ; Crabtree, Ohm, et al, 2016 ), and regular discussions during data analysis ( Bryant et al, 2016 ; Makdisi et al, 2013 ). Involvement in dissemination of results included help to formulate recommendations ( Ball & Shanks, 2012 ), involvement in education session ( Ripat et al, 2010 ) or simply as “public collaborators were involved in the dissemination” ( Simpson et al, 2020 ; Turcotte et al, 2019 ), without further descriptions.…”

“…Involvement in dissemination of results included help to formulate recommendations ( Ball & Shanks, 2012 ), involvement in education session ( Ripat et al, 2010 ) or simply as “public collaborators were involved in the dissemination” ( Simpson et al, 2020 ; Turcotte et al, 2019 ), without further descriptions. In four studies, public collaborators were co-authors of the research article ( Birken & Harper, 2017 ; Crabtree, Ohm, et al, 2016 ; Makdisi et al, 2013 ; Restall et al, 2017 ).…”

“…The PPI approach included “service user advisory panel” ( Ball & Shanks, 2012 ), “steering group with diverse members including service users” ( Bryant et al, 2016 ), “user forum” ( Craik et al, 2010 ), “involving various stakeholders in a structured process” ( Nielsen et al, 2019 ), or as “research team with diverse members” including public collaborators ( Bryant et al, 2016 ; Makdisi et al, 2013 ; Restall et al, 2017 ). One study established an advisory group including service users, with the rationale to oversee the research and ensure quality ( Birken & Bryant, 2019 ).…”

Exploring Service Accessibility and Quality for Differently-Abled Students: A Qualitative Analysis at a South African University of Technology

“…The findings provide valuable insights for enhancing the accessibility, empathy, and responsiveness of financial aid services at a university, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and supportive environment for all students. The study's recommendations offer a pathway for addressing the identified challenges and improving the overall quality of service delivery within the Department, aligning with the broader literature on service quality and delivery in various contexts (Entwistle et al, 2012;Hartanti et al, 2022;Restall et al, 2017).…”