RESEARCH FOR SOCIAL CARE (RFSC) ROADSHOW EVENT - 7TH OCTOBER 2020 HOSTED BY THE RESEARCH DESIGN SERVICE SOUTH CENTRAL
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Research for Social Care (RfSC) Roadshow Event 7th October 2020 Hosted by the Research Design Service South Central
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Welcome and Introduction
Welcome & Introduction
NIHR Research for Social Care (RfSC)
Roadshow
7th October 2020
Issy Reading
Research Design Service South Central
Timetable for the Day
9:45 Welcome from RDS South Central Issy Reading, Director, RDS South Central
9:55 Introduction to Social Care Research Martin Knapp, Director of the NIHR School for Social Care
10:15 Overview of RfSC scheme Ben Morgan, Assistant Director, NIHR CCF
10:45-10.55 Comfort break
10:55 What makes a good RfSC application? View from the panel Ly-Mee Yu, Member of RfSC Panel & Associate
Professor Oxford Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit
11:15 Preparing for an RfSC application: the researchers’ perspective Shereen Hussein, Successful RfSC applicant
& Professor of Care and Health Policy Evaluation, Associate Director, Personal Social Services Research Unit,
University of Kent
11:35 Q&A Ben Morgan, Ly-Mee Yu & Shereen Hussein; Chair: Sophie Hyndman, Deputy Director, RDS South Central
11:55-12:05 Comfort break
12:05 PPI and plain English Megan Barlow-Pay, Patient and Public Involvement Lead, RDS South Central
12:25 Parallel sessions: The social care context and research approaches
• For more experienced health researchers: Health versus social care research: differences in context and
methods Associate Professor Andrew Power, Geography and Environmental Science, University of
Southampton
• For practitioners in social care: New to research? A methods session for practitioners Associate
Professor Sara Ryan, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford
12:55 Next steps Issy Reading, RDS South Central
13:00-13:45 Lunch Break
From 13:45 One to One sessions: Discussion of potential projects with RDS Advisers
Research Design Service South Central
• The RDS is made up of methodologists
(and experienced researchers) who are
active in their own research, patient and
public involvement advisers and
administrators
• To help researchers develop and submit
high quality grant applications
• RDS SC has three sites: Oxford,
Portsmouth and Southampton
We provide free advice on all
aspects of your applied health and
social care research funding
application.
Contact your local RDS region:
www.rds-sc.nihr.ac.uk
Issy Reading
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Welcome and Introduction
Who we can help
We help:
• Social care and health professionals
• Practitioners, academics and clinicians
• Social care and NHS organisations
• Service users
Who are applying for:
• Funding for social care or applied health research
NIHR funding programmes
But also other national peer-reviewed funding programmes
(research councils, charities, etc)
What we can help you with
Acknowledgement: RDS North West
Examples of our support
• Allocation of a research
adviser to each project
• One-to-one support
• Research Design Advisory
Panel (RDAP)
• External peer review
• Pre-submission review panel
• Mock interviews for fellowship applications
• Master classes and events
• Signposting to other support as required
Issy Reading
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Welcome and Introduction
Feedback on our support
On our pre‐submission review panel:
“The RDS are razor sharp.
They have made every
“I found the RDS programme sentence, every phrase as
in all its components essential clear and powerful as
for our application – we could possible.”
not have submitted it without
RDS support.”
“This was an incredibly helpful
experience. The application has moved
on so much as a result of the process and
I am so grateful to the panel for all the
time and care they took reading our
application and helping us to develop it”.
How to request support & contact us
www.rds-sc.nihr.ac.uk
Issy Reading
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
Introduction to Social Care
Research
NIHR RDS South East
NIHR Research for Social Care
16 September 2020
Martin Knapp
Care Policy & Evaluation Centre, LSE m.knapp@lse.ac.uk
NIHR School for Social Care Research @knappem
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
What is adult social care (ASC)?
“Adults with care needs cannot perform activities of daily living
such as washing, taking medicine, paperwork, cooking and
shopping without support.
Care needs may be short‐lived, long‐term or permanent, and are
difficult to plan for.
Needs can arise from disability from birth; physical injury; mental
health problems; health conditions such as dementia; discharge
from hospital, perhaps after a fall or fracture; or ill‐health of an
informal carer.
Social care and health care needs can overlap and be difficult to
distinguish and define. For example, an individual may be in good
health but have care needs”. (National Audit Office 2014)
Martin Knapp
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
Adult social care and other services (NAO)
Local authorities
Health services
Intermediate Adult social care services
care
Housing services
Occupational therapy and Learning
Safeguarding Adaptations to the home
equipment disabilities
Home care Alarms and
Integration: Reablement
Day services key holding
inter‐professional work Direct
Extra care
Drug & alcohol payment
Mental health housing
services services Deferred payment agreement
Supported
Continuing Residential care housing
Residential homes with nursing
healthcare
care homes
Care & support Carers’ services
Welfare and benefits services Leisure and wellbeing
planning
Employment Advocacy Support planning
services
support Housing benefits Social work
support Sports/physical activity in
Meals community centres
Disability benefits
Citizen advice Assessing
Information & Transport services
needs
advice
Multi‐dimensional, multi‐sector context
Health‐social care links?
• Collaborative care
Social • Boundaries & access
care to support
• Strategic planning
• Prevention
• Carer support
In fact, social care needs
and responses are whole‐
system issues
Tax Human
Community
policy Welfare rights
develop’t benefits Competition
policy
Social
Housing
care
Science
Immigration
policy policy
Education
Labour
markets
Food Criminal Pensions
policy justice Trade &
Environment
Industry
Martin Knapp
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
Key ASC characteristics to remember
• Funding from central government, local taxes, self‐funding, charities
• State support is means‐tested; not universal
• Eligibility (need) thresholds influenced by available budgets
• Wellbeing, not health, is the primary objective
• Local decisions (n=152 LAs) potentially wide variations
• Family & other carers play huge roles
• Limited evidence base to guide decision‐making
• Private sector providers dominate (real) markets; not “playing shops”
• Skilled social workers; but most staff low‐qualified, low‐paid, high‐turnover
• Care mostly low‐tech; relationships matter: ‘complex interventions’
• Some people with ASC needs are not well‐placed to make choices
Some research challenges in ASC
• Historically limited funding for social care research
• Under‐supply of skilled, experienced researchers
• Few practitioner‐researchers
• Questions about methodology?
• Lack of collective identity for social care research(ers)
• Weak research culture in the ASC sector itself; and few well‐
developed channels for evidence translation
• Lack of funding through support costs to encourage engagement
• Research infrastructure: data availability; information governance;
research governance, ethics
• Recruitment of individuals & organisations into studies
Significant NIHR achievements since 2018
• RfSC call through RfPB; new PRUs, cross‐cutting theme
Programmes • HSDR networks & partnerships call (+ other calls)
• Phase 3 contract – internal & external commissioning
SSCR • Research capacity development contract
• Focus on social care in new contract
ARCs • ARC national lead for social care appointed
• Eligibility criteria expended to include social care
CRNs • Local pilot projects to consider offer to social care
• Developed strategy for social care
RDS • Support RfSC call with events
• SSCR Research Capacity Development contract
Academy • SSCR incubator
• James Lind Alliance PSP on Adult Social Work
Involvement • Review of involvement in social care research
Martin Knapp
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
NIHR School for Social Care Research
Mission: “to develop the evidence base to inform and improve adult
social care practice in England by commissioning and conducting
internationally leading research.”
Phases I & II – 2009‐19
• 129 research studies; 25 Scoping Reviews; 24 Methods Reviews
• Capacity‐building … exploratory
Phase III – 2019‐24 (£18m + £3m for capacity‐building)
• LSE; King’s College London; Universities of Birmingham, Bristol,
Kent, Manchester & York
• Internal & externally commissioned studies
• Major emphasis on capacity‐building with NIHR Academy
NIHR SSCR – lots of goodies on the website!
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/
NIHR School for Social Care Research
Martin Knapp
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
Recruiting into adult social care studies
Challenges of recruiting participants (individuals & organisations) into
adult social care studies?
• Semi‐structured interviews with 17 senior ASC researchers
Numerous barriers; what are the solutions?
• Build partnerships between researchers & providers
• Offer financial & other incentives
• Clarify benefits of research
• Understand gatekeeping arrangements
• Raise broader public awareness of ASC research
• Build relationships with user & carer groups
• Offer a range of participation routes
• Ensure sufficient time & resources to recruit (representative) samples
SSCR webinars (research & ‘capacity’)
• Focus on:
• research findings and commissioned studies
• capacity‐building: methods, NIHR activities
• Most Tuesdays – usually 13.00‐14.00
• Forthcoming topics ‐ carers, care homes, NIHR
Academy, NIHR CRN, mixed‐methods, statistical
methods
• Recordings and slides – archived online
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/webinars/
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/webinar‐archive/
Journal of Long‐Term Care
Social Care Elf
Martin Knapp
RfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
Call for research proposals
• Innovative, original, high‐quality proposals …
• … with potential to improve adult social care practice
• Aimed at new & developing researchers
• One‐stage process
• Projects start in Spring 2021 ‐ up to 35 months
• Funding limit = £100,000
• Deadlines:
• Expression of interest ‐ 12 Oct 2020
• Application –30 Nov 2020
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/call‐for‐research‐proposals/
Capacity‐building programme
• Supported by NIHR Academy & DHSC
• Funding for career development:
• Annual ‐ Individual career development; internships
• Two rounds – studentships (2019; 2020)
• Two rounds ‐ Developing research leaders (2021; 2022); practice‐based
research leaders (2021; 2022)
• Cohort of CB Fellows, Doctoral students, Interns
• Training programme – webinars and events
• Supporting NIHR Social Care Incubator…
… & NIHR Social Care Statistics Working Group
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/capacity/
Individual career development awards
• Open to individuals committed to improving adult social care
practice in England
• Support for career development activities (rather than research
projects, as such)
• 8 and 35 months duration – must finish by 28 Feb 2024
• Funding of up to £50,000
• Deadlines:
• Expression of interest ‐ 30 Nov 2020
• Application ‐ 18 Jan 2021
• Calls in late 2021, 2022
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/capacity/career‐development‐awards/
Martin KnappRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Introduction to social care research
Disclaimer
Views expressed in this presentation are those of the
presenter, and are not necessarily those of the National
Institute for Health Research or any of my other research
funders.
I have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Thank you
m.knapp@lse.ac.uk @Knappem
Martin KnappRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
Research for Social Care
(RfSC) Call
RfPB Programme
Ben Morgan, Assistant Director
What I’m planning to talk about
• The annual Research for Social Care (RfSC) call
• Information, process, eligibility
• Advice for application to the RfSC call
• Questions
Research for Social Care Call
The RfSC call is run on an annual basis:
• £3m allocated per call and we will aim to fund 10-15 high quality
proposals per round.
• Applications will be assessed by a single national committee of social
care research experts.
• Two stage application process, with stage 1 (outline) application deadline
of 20 January 2021.
• Shortlisted applicants will be invited to complete a stage 2 (full)
application in April 2021 with final outcomes in September 2021.
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
Research for Social Care Call
Applications can be for up to £350k and up to 3 years in length. RfSC does not apply formal tiers (as
RfPB does) and the approach is that funding will be awarded to proposals in relation to their
trajectory to achieving social care benefit.
Therefore, ‘upstream’ research which may need further work afterwards to lead to social care benefit
is likely to be funded at less than a study which fully evaluates service/care package etc and could
lead to direct changes in care.
Please note, we can only fund adult social care (including the transition into adult care).
Researchers are invited to submit a pre-submission form for some guidance from the RfSC team.
The Stage 1 Assessment Process
The national committee, comprising social care experts, practitioners and public members,
will meet following application deadline to consider:
1. Social care benefit (the so what?)
The relevance and importance of the research question. Is it relevant to care users,
carers and/or wider social care?
2. Methods and team
Will the proposed methods achieve the aims and objectives? Is the approach
acceptable to care users/ carers? Are the outcomes relevant to social care? Is the
proposed team appropriate?
3. Competitiveness of the application
The number and scale of improvements required to make a subsequent stage 2
application competitive (number of minor, major and fundamental flaws).
Host organisations eligible for this call
• RfSC applications can be submitted by universities, local authorities and NHS
bodies (or providers of NHS services)
• Host organisations must be able to fulfil the role of Sponsor, as described in the
Research Governance Framework for Health and Care
• Host organisations must be based in England (but collaborators can be outside of
England if justified)
• Applications are expected to have strong links and collaborations with relevant
organisations which deliver social care e.g. local authorities, third sector
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
Social care is a broad topic and the call specification contains a list of
suggested topics (but this is not exhaustive).
• Social care needs and relevant outcomes (which could be quality of life, social or health care
related, as appropriate to the study, population etc.)
• Developing a more robust evidence base for current ways of working
• Developing and evaluating new ways of delivering social care
• Secondary data analysis, record linkage and reviews
• Research methods development
• Care users’ and carers’ circumstances and needs
• Those who deliver social care including unpaid carers and the staff and professionals involved in
the delivery of social care e.g. social workers.
This is a researcher-led call and open to proposals in all areas of adult social care provided
the benefit to care users and carers, relevance to social care and potential impact on social
care is demonstrated.
Costings
• Research Costs are the costs of the research activity itself, data collection, analysis and other
activities needed to answer the research questions. Research costs are met by the funder (e.g.
RfSC).
• Support Costs include the additional user-related care costs associated with the research, which
would end once the R&D activity has stopped, even if the care service involved continued to be
provided.They are met by the Clinical Research Network (CRN)
• Treatment Costs (i.e. Intervention/service Costs) are the care costs that would continue to be
incurred if the care service in questions continued to be provided after the R&D activity has
stopped.
• Excess Treatment Cost (ETC) is the difference between the total Treatment Costs and the costs
of the standard care currently provided. Treatment costs should be met by the commissioner of
the care service (e.g. NHS, local authorities, third sector etc.).
Costings – an example
Interviews need to be conducted to obtain users’ views on a new piece of assistive
technology being assessed for people with dementia in care homes.
• In this example, the interviews would be considered the research activity (as they will
end with the research project and are not required for safety reasons) and would be
funded as a Research cost by the funder i.e. RfSC.
• Consenting/recruiting the users to take part in this research project would be considered
a Support cost and funded by the CRN.
• The assistive technology is considered a Treatment cost and would be funded by the
organisation responsible for delivering/funding it in practice e.g. the care home.
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
Costings - terminology
We appreciate that these costing terms are very health focused and
designed for the NHS. The call guidance has been tweaked to try to make it
clear how this applies to social care research.
Please note:
• Social care research is eligible for CRN support and you should include
support costs where relevant. Please speak to the CRN for advice and
guidance for these costs.
• Treatment costs should be read as intervention/service costs within
social care.
If you need assistance with the costings please contact the RfSC team.
RfPB Social Care awards from round 1 and 2
20 applications have been funded so far, across a range of topics and methodologies, here is a
selection of them
• Resource For Enhancing Carer Resilience, Well-Being and Sustainability (real world-mixed methods)
• Evaluation of the quality and costs of supported living and residential care for adults with learning disabilities
(Evaluation)
• Evidence-Based Innovation in Social Care (Qualitative interviews and observations)
• Examining Impact of Local Area Coordination as a Preventative Intervention in Adult Social Care (participatory action
research)
• Mental capacity and personal finances: a qualitative study of assessment and support-(Literature review, qual
fieldwork, synthesis)
• Can a ‘trigger’ question to identify gambling harms to individuals or affected others be validated and used in three
local authority Adult services departments (Co Development and testing, and subsequent evaluation)
Call outcomes
Competition 2 had 36 stage 1 applications submitted and a total of 17 applications were assessed at
stage 2.
The 8 projects recommended for funding amount to 47% of applications invited to stage 2 and
22% of total applications received.
There were 8 applications recommended for funding during Competition. The total value of these
projects is £2.15m; the budget was set at £3m-so please note we can fund more if the quality is there
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
5 key things for a successful RfSC application:
1) Clear research question/rationale
2) Clearly defined Social care benefit (or path to impact)
3) Appropriate Methods - clearly linked to the overall aims and objectives
4) A convincing team
5) A suitable Involvement plan for Social care practitioners, researchers, care workers
and users of social care
The research question
What makes an interesting/ important research question?
• Why does this new knowledge matter for social care?
• What is the trajectory from this question to care user, carer and/or wider
social care benefit?
• Will the methods provide a clear answer to the question?
• Is the cost of the research commensurate to the ‘risk’ it won’t deliver?
Team composition
• The team needs to reflect the nature of the proposed work, with relevant people
included – under/over costing will be picked up by the committee
• Each co-applicant needs a clearly described role – if the committee cannot determine
what each member is doing it undermines the application
• Including a list of senior colleagues at 1% is not well received by committees – we want
to see who will actually be doing the work
• If the PI is ‘junior’ make it clear which senior member is supporting/mentoring (with a
suitable %FTE attributed), perhaps as a Joint-PI
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
Team composition
• Whole team needs to be balanced and appropriately resourced
• The team is likely to be multidisciplinary with appropriate social care experts and
practitioners involved with strong support from methodologists (vital)
• New investigators and early career researchers are encouraged, including PIs, with a
robust and convincing team and appropriate support
• RDS is an excellent resource to assist
Common areas for feedback
• Rationale/link to social care benefit is not clear
• Detail in the methodology is lacking or appropriateness of the design is questioned
• Overall lack of clarity and focus of the application
• Inappropriate or burdensome outcome measures
• Particular areas of expertise lacking in the research team
• Insufficient quality of the patient and public involvement (care user, carer and practitioner involvement)
• Justification or detail of the intervention lacking
• Insufficient detail provided in the background information
• Inappropriate statistics or health economics analysis
• Concerns with the recruitment, sampling and overall feasibility
• Questions regarding project impact, timescales, generalisability or dissemination
Common reasons for rejection
• Failure to demonstrate importance of topic or potential benefit
• Research question is ill-defined, unfocused or unsupported by literature
review or preliminary data
• Omission of critical literature references
• Research team lacks relevant experience (methodological and/or social
care)
• Method unsuitable, flawed or unlikely to yield results
• Insufficient method detail to convince reviewers that the team knows what it
is doing
• Insufficient recognition of potential problems e.g. in recruitment
• Lack of clear pathway to impact
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Research for Social Care (RfSC) Call
Plain English Summary
A good quality plain English summary is now a requirement for NIHR
funding.
• Guidance for applicants, reviewers and committees has been developed
by INVOLVE and implemented across NIHR to help develop and
evaluate good quality plain English summaries
• The NIHR standard application form and review forms have been revised
• Resources include examples to support applicants
http://www.invo.org.uk/makeitclear/
Any questions?
Ben MorganRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 What makes a good RfSC application?
What makes a good RfSC
application? View from the
panel
Ly-Mee Yu, DPhil
Associate Professor
Oxford Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit, NDPCHS
University of Oxford
About myself…
Funding Panel Experience
• RfPB
• RfSC
• DIFA
• HTA Efficient Study Design
• Provided methodology review of the applications
Ly‐Mee YuRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 What makes a good RfSC application?
Assessment of application
• As a main assessor:
• Stage1
• Plain English Summary
• Application history and changes
• Research question & rationale
• Current evidence
• Current guidelines
• Current funded studies
• Methods
• Project vs timeline vs budget
Assessment of application
• As a main assessor:
• Stage2
• Changes from Stage 1
• Summary of reviewers’ comments
• Methods
• Budget
• Gantt chart
What makes a good application?
My personal view
Ly‐Mee YuRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 What makes a good RfSC application?
What makes a good application? – My personal view
A good and clear title
What makes a good application? – My personal view
Something that I want
to keep reading
Ly‐Mee YuRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 What makes a good RfSC application?
What makes a good application? – My personal view
Clear and organised
Being clear…
• Rationale
• Research gap
• Study design – ideal vs pragmatic
Can the study design answer the research question?
Objectives Sample size &
Statistical analysis
Research question
Study design Study procedures
Outcome
Ly‐Mee YuRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 What makes a good RfSC application?
Being clear…
• Rationale
• Research gap
• Study design – ideal vs pragmatic
• Timeline – optimistic vs realistic
• Resource – what you need vs what you want
• Impact and dissemination
Thank you
Ly‐Mee YuRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Developing a scale of work-related quality of life for
adult social care staff (ASCOT-Staff): Phase One
Sep 2019- March 2021
RDS Event 7 October 2020
Professor Shereen Hussein
Professor of Care and Health Policy Evaluation
Associate Director, Personal Social Services Research Unit
University of Kent
www.pssru.ac.uk/ascot @ascot_pssru
www.pssru.ac.uk #ASCOT_staff
Acknowledgment & Disclaimer:
This study/project is funded by the National Institute for Health
Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme
NIHR200070. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and
not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and
Social Care.
This presentation is a collective effort of the ASCOT‐Staff research team
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Project Overview – Project Team
Prof. Shereen Hussein* Ann-Marie Towers** Nadia Brookes*
Sinead Palmer* Dr Barbora Silarova*
*Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, ** Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent @ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Thinking process
• Identify key theme:
• Social care practice and workforce
• Referring back to the core aim of RfSC
• The central focus is: “What’s in it for patients and service users?”
• Here the research is focused on the wellbeing of formal care workers
• Important to connect improving the wellbeing of staff to improving the organisation
and delivery of care and broader quality outcomes
• The key role of public involvement
• Who are they and how I can actively involve them
• Research quality, team, management and quality assurance
• The role of the project advisory group
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Project Overview – Project Advisory Group
• Nadra Ahmed (National Care Association) • Professor Teppo Kröger (the Department of Social
Sciences and Philosophy of the University of
Jyväskylä, Finland)
• Jennifer Bostock (Stakeholder/PPI)
• Dr Sarah Markham (PPI)
• Professor Sara Charlesworth (RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia)
• Professor Allister McGregor (the Department of
Politics and the Sheffield Political Economy
• Matthew Egan (UNISON) Research Institute (SPERI) at the University of
Sheffield, UK)
• Margaret Fox (Skills for Care) • Professor Ann Netten (previous director of PSSRU,
University of Kent, UK)
• Karolina Gerlich (the National Association of Care &
Support Workers (NACAS)) • Clark Rushbrook (Department of Health and Social
Care)
• Lyn Griffiths (Stakeholder)
• Helen Salisbury (PPI)
@ascot_pssru
Representative of funder: Rifat Mahbub
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Project Overview – Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)
• Types of involvement in this research:
• join face-to-face or via phone two Project Advisory Group meetings
• be involved in developing study documents, for example to assist with
forming the questions for interviews and group discussions
• provide feedback on the research findings
• support the write up of lay summaries of the research findings for the
dissemination @ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Project Overview - Background
• Work-related quality of life (WRQoL) is important to:
Individual’s emotional and physical wellbeing
Work outcomes – e.g. turnover
The quality of service provided and outcomes related to service
users
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Project Overview - Background
• Care and nursing staff are particularly vulnerable to low levels of
WRQoL, due to:
Caring being emotionally taxing
Structural pressures in sector – low wages and increased
fragmentation
Moral distress @ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Project Overview - Background
• Existing scales focus on:
wages, patterns of work and supportive environment yet ignore
emotional rewards from caring
do not examine the impact of care work on workers’ own quality of
life
• A conceptually similar measure exists of the impact of caring on the
quality of life of unpaid carers – ASCOT-Carer
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Aims and Objectives
To begin development of an ASCOT-staff measure, examining
the quality of life of care staff, and the impact of care work upon
this
The first stage, and the focus of this project, is to determine the
domains of WRQoL that are relevant to care staff
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
What is social care work-related QoL?
• ASCOT-Staff
• Aspects of QoL most affected by care work.
• Expect these to be sensitive to working conditions and culture.
• Each domain has negative and positive outcomes for that
attribute.
• Focus is always on the outcome not the process
• There may be lots of ways to create a positive workplace or culture
• This measure aims to reflect how working conditions in social care impact
on care worker’s QoL.
@ascot_pssru
#ASCOT_staff
Research Questions
RQ1. Review and appraise current quality of life at work scales that are
relevant to social care work
RQ2. Identify key domains necessary to develop a WRQoL tool that is
specific to the adult social care workforce in England (ASCOT-Staff)
RQ3. Identify potential ‘at work’ supporting mechanisms that are likely to
improve care staff WRQoL
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Methods
1. Scoping review
2. Group discussions and individual interviews
3. Survey
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Project changes in response to COVID-19
• All fieldwork paused March 2020, resumed end of July
• Amendment to Ethics
• Focus groups changed to be held remotely using MS Teams/Zoom
• Consent process adapted- completed and returned online
• Additional journal article- Scoping Review Protocol submitted to
BMJ Open
• Six-month extension (pending)
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Scoping Review
Research questions:
1) What are the existing definitions of work-related quality of life in adult social care?
2) What are the dimensions (characteristics) of work-related quality of life in adult social care?
3) What aspects of adult social care work has an impact on the social care worker’s quality of life?
4) What questionnaires of work-related quality of life are available to be used in adult social care?
5) What factors are associated with work-related quality of life in adult social care?
6) What strategies have been implemented and evaluated that addressed care staff’ work-related
quality of life?
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Prisma Flow Diagram
Records identified through database
searching
Identification
(n = 6289)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 5979)
Records screened
Screening
(n =5979)
Records excluded
(n = 5754*)
Out of those 124 duplicates
identified manually
Full‐text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 225)
Full‐text articles excluded,
with reasons
Eligibility
(n = 182)
n = 95 not a concept Additional records identified through
n = 28 not a context other sources
n = 29 not professionals (n = 17 )
n = 7 language n = 11 through references
n = 8 type of study n = 6 provided through network of
n = 2 duplicates experts
n = 13 no full texts available
Included
Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 60)
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Scoping Review: preliminary findings
Level Organisational culture Job characteristics Personal characteristics
Key Areas Wages and benefits Skill variety Strategies for coping
Time issues Work‐life balance Individual characteristics
Racism and discrimination Autonomy Job involvement
Social support Self‐actualisation
Career progression Working conditions
Communication Commitment to clients
Accountability/responsibility Client’s characteristics
Training
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Focus Groups
• How working in social care impacts care workers' life?
• What aspects of their work help people to feel positively about
their lives and what aspects of their work have a negative
impact on their lives?
Original plan: 2 Focus Groups with managers, 4 with frontline
staff
To date: 2 with managers, 1 with frontline staff
We decided to replace FG with frontline staff with interviews
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Individual Interviews
• Top – down perspective
• To reflect on the initial outcome domains identified so far.
• To explore how the sector as a whole might use data like this.
• To explore organisational support mechanisms to address staff
work-related quality of life as identified through the scoping
review. @ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Individual Interviews
• 12 semi-structured interviews completed on telephone or MS
Teams/Zoom
• Participants included representatives from carer and care
organisations, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders
• Interviews (and focus groups) transcribed and to be analysed
using thematic analysis
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Individual Interviews- initial findings
Key points
• Perception of tool‐ • Benefits of the tool‐
• Important to know how data will be used • Help identify areas for development
• A helpful resource rather than ‘a stick to • Good working environment=good quality
beat with’ of care
• Good to have a standardised tool for • Prevent staff burnout
social care • Forge better relationships between
workforce and management
• Requirements for tool‐
• Sensitive to change
• Adopted into or supported by national
framework/policy
• Consider how to make changes, rather
than just measure
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Next steps – Survey
• Specific feedback on the importance and priority of the domains
identified through the qualitative stage of the research.
• All participants from the focus groups and individual interviews
and advisory group members.
• Online survey, option to complete it via phone call.
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Project Overview - Some ideas/examples
Feeling
valued and
supported
Job enable
Relationships
you to meet
with users
your own
and carers
needs
ASCOT‐
Staff
Having time
to meet Feeling safe
people’s at work
needs
Being able to
make
decisions
@ascot_pssru
#ASCOT_staff
Dissemination and Outputs
Agreed domains of ASCOT-Staff
A brief guide for social care practitioners and
employers
A summary report to be published on the PSSRU
website
Two peer-reviews journal articles (open access)
Project website:
https://www.pssru.ac.uk/ascotforstaff/homepage/
Twitter: # ASCOT_staff
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Anticipated Impact
Questionnaire Development
Long term plans Phase One Phase Two
Phase Three
Dimensions of work-related Pre-tests, Cognitive
Validation
quality of life interviewing, Piloting
ASCOT-Staff project Long term plans
Short term plans
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Developing an application: Key Criteria
• The topic is of relevance to the funder and programme aims
• The team, especially the PI, is well‐situated with enough expertise to
undertake research in this area
• The research design and methodology are sound
• The project activities are feasible within the suggested time frame
• Clear awareness of potential risks and mitigating factors
• There are tangible outcomes that have direct impact on social care service
users’ outcomes
• Effective Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) throughout the process
• Involvement and collaboration with organisations that deliver social care
services (e.g. local authorities, care providers)
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Developing an application: Tips
• You might have an idea for a while
• Connect with relevant researchers, discuss and reflect
• Seek advice from service users/carers and public in a meaningful way
• It is very important to read and follow the application guidelines
• Frame the idea bearing in mind the call specification and application form
• Essential elements to include and connect them well:
• Do the research questions follow logically from the identified problem?
• Are the methods suitable to the proposed questions and objective?
• Make clear connections to outcomes
• What will your project produce? How are you going to build upon it further? What
are the short and long term benefits?
• Language and diagrams
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Preparing for an RfSC Application
Questions
@ascot_pssru
16/09/2020 @DrShereeHussein #ASCOT_staff
Shereen HusseinRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
Public/care user
Involvement
What is it, why is it important and what is expected in an SfSC application?
Megan Barlow-Pay
Research Design Service
Patient and Public Involvement more of an overarching
principle than a research method
Has been incorporated into NIHR research in an official
capacity for over 10 years
Now seen as ‘the norm’ and expected in high quality health and
social care research
As social care researchers it may be known using different
terminology, principles are the same.
Participation
• Patients who are recruited into a study as ‘subjects’.
Engagement
• Publicising and sharing information and results about research and research findings
Involvement
• An active partnership between researchers and patients and the public in the research process.
Patients and the public are involved in decision-making.
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
INVOLVE defines public involvement in research as research being
carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or
‘for’ them.
Democratic Principles
• Citizenship, public accountability and transparency
• Can lead to empowerment
• Provides a route to influencing change
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
It improves health and social care research
(and ultimately health outcomes!)
• Provides a different perspective
• Helps ensure research is relevant, manageable and
implementable
• Ennis and Wykes (2013): studies involving patients to a
greater extent were more likely to reach recruitment targets
De-mystifying research
• Societal preconceptions about health and social care research
• Part of a 2 way educational process
• Creates a sense of ownership of healthcare system, and subsequently
ownership of health
https://www.rds-
sc.nihr.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/RDS
_PPI-Handbook_web_1.pdf
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
Design:
• Help clarify or refine the research question, ensuring it is important to service users
• Ensure the methods proposed will be appropriate for participants
• Assist in creating a recruitment strategy
• Review and comment on proposed questionnaires or data collection methods
Undertaking/Managing
• Helping steer the project through representation on a TMG
• Assisting in writing patient facing documents including PIS/consent forms
• Collaborating on intervention development/refinement
• Undertaking interviews or interpreting data (training may be required)
• Develop and co-deliver a dissemination strategy
RfSC Stage 1
Plain English Summary
When writing your summary consider including the
following information where appropriate:
a) aim(s) of the research • No specific free text box for PPI
b) background to the research
c) design and methods used • This does NOT mean you don’t talk
d) patient and public involvement
e) dissemination about PPI
• Should be embedded throughout the
application
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
The NIHR expects appropriate and relevant involvement of care users, carers, the
public and other key stakeholders in the research it supports. It is essential to set
out your plans to involve care users, carers and the public in the Stage 1
application. Your patient and public involvement plans will be assessed by the
funding committee including patient and public members.
Information and resources to assist you can be found on the INVOLVE website (a
detailed definition of patient and public involvement in research, briefing notes for
researchers on how to involve patients and the public and an involvement cost
calculator and budgeting guide).
In this section it is important that you identify all stakeholders who are relevant to
your research proposal. For each stakeholder group you need to be clear about
how they benefit from your proposed research and, where appropriate, how they
have been involved in the development of the application, as well as the plans for
their involvement in the proposed research.
(Research Plan RfSC Guidance Notes Stage 1)
Examples….
Background and rationale
… A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership has identified XXX to be a top 10 priority for
research in this area…
Contributions from PPI/care user representatives in the development of the application supported the
need for XXX
Aims and Objectives
The primary outcome measure, identified with the support of PPI/care user is XXX
Research Plan
The intervention was developed in collaboration with a expert user panel
On the advice of PPI/care users, we have included XXX in our exclusion criteria
Recruitment has been recommended by PPI representatives
RfSC Stage 2
Second stage applications will have dedicated sections
within the application form for PPI
• You will be expected to go into much more detail
• You will be expected to have a clear plan for PPI going forward
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
RfSC Guidance Notes Stage 2
Note that your description of how service users, carers and the public have been involved in
developing this proposal, and how they will be involved in the proposed research, should be
captured in the three specific Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) questions asked
elsewhere in the application form. Although you are encouraged to include information
about PPI activities within the Detailed Research Plan section, there is no requirement to
repeat or duplicate the responses to the three specific PPI questions. In rare cases where
proposals do not involve service users, carers or the public, clear justification must be
provided, in response to the third PPI question.
INVOLVE has issued guidance for researchers about involving patients, service users,
carers and the public in research, as well as about payment and support, including the
Briefing Notes for Researchers and the Payment resource centre:
“Please describe how service users, carers and the public have been
involved in developing this proposal”
• Who are your care users/public involvement representatives
• How were they identified?
• What have they done to influence the research proposal
• Give specific examples
• E.g. “carer user feedback was that too many appointments at
hospital may affect adherence. Subsequently, we have altered
the design up so all follow ups assessments can be done at 3,
6, 9 & 12 months, alongside the service users’ regular
appointments”
How can the RDS help?
• Review proposals and advise on ideas for Public Involvement
• Help recruit Public Representatives, and make contact with local
organisations and patient groups
• Facilitate meetings between research team and Public
Representatives
• Support with funding PI involvement in the early stages of the
application
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
“Please describe the ways in which service users, carers and the
public will be actively involved in the proposed research, including
any for training and support provided.”
• Detailed plans for continued involvement
• Think of the research cycle
• How will service users etc. be supported?
• Dissemination?
How can the RDS help?
• Provide guidance and advice on how to meaningfully incorporate PI throughout the course of
the project
• Help with planning funding for Public Involvement
In rare cases where proposals do NOT involve patients and the public, clear
justification must be provided.
Please seek advice from RDS if you think there is strong justification for not including
PPI
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
Working with PPI representatives during Covid-19
Unique challenges relating to involving public members in a safe and meaningful way during
the pandemic, this is even more true for the most vulnerable communities, or for those
without access to technology.
Seek advice from RDS and build links with local community groups or not-for-profits.
Resources available: https://www.rdsblog.org.uk/public-involvement-during-a-pandemic-how-
we-are-supporting-researchers
“The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we
communicate” Joseph Priestley
A good quality summary
A clear, easy to read summary that is as jargon free as possible. It must be
able to standalone and provide an overview of your whole research.
• Why is it important?
• Lay members on funding panels
• Informs others about your research, i.e. policy makers, media etc.
• Research funders will publicise the research they fund
• How will it be assessed?
• Will be assessed by reviewers and panel members who will
comment on the summary.
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Public/care user Involvement
How to write a summary
Know your audience! Remember – those reading your summary
will be interested, but not necessarily specialists. Imagine you are
writing for a newspaper article.
• Avoid jargon, abbreviations, and technical terms where possible
• Avoid complicated or uncommon words
• Use active not passive phrases. i.e. ‘We will do’ rather than ‘It will be done by us’
• Keep sentences short
• Think about order and structure
• Break up text
• Ask your Public Representatives to review!
Your Plain English Summary is NOT the same as your scientific abstract! It must
be written from scratch.
Thank you!
M.s.barlow-pay@soton.ac.uk
Megan Barlow‐PayRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Health versus social care: Differences in
context and methods
Health versus social care:
Differences in context and
methods
Dr Andrew Power
Associate Professor of Geography
University of Southampton
My background
• Research interests in geographies of disability and social care, qualitative
methodologies.
• Served as Chair of Geographies of Health and Wellbeing Research Group
(RGS‐IBG) 2016‐2020
• Active Citizenship & Disability project – Self‐directed support
https://www.nuigalway.ie/centre‐disability‐law‐
policy/research/projects/completed/modernisationofservices/
• ESRC‐funded study – SelfBuildingOurLives
http://selfbuildingourlives.org/
• NIHR (SSCR) funded study ‐ Promoting homelike environments for people
with intellectual disabilities living in group homes
https://www.sscr.nihr.ac.uk/projects/p160/
Context
Andrew PowerRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Health versus social care: Differences in
context and methods
Social care legislation & key developments
• Key pillars – Personalisation and Co‐production
• 1996 Community Care (Direct Payments) Act
• In Control – Personal Budgets
• 2003 Fair Access to Care Services (FACS)
• 2007 Putting People First
• 2008 IBSEN review (reported FACS tightening of eligibility criteria)
• 2014 Care Act
National guidance
Andrew PowerRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Health versus social care: Differences in
context and methods
Legacies of congregated care provision
• Despite the policy aspirations towards community care, a substantial
amount of social care is still provided within hospital and residential
care settings
• NHS England has sought to reduce the numbers of people with
learning disabilities in these settings through their national
‘Transforming Care’ strategy (NHS England, 2012).
• Limited progress due to funding constraints and variable delivery.
• Sector faces tough challenges itself with regular reports of institutional abuse
(e.g. Winterbourne, Whorlton Hall, Yew Tree)
Landscape of social care
Social care is very fragmented (1) geographically, (2) organisationally and (3)
legally.
(1) Geographically: social care largely community based and commissioned
primarily by local authorities (‘post‐code lottery’) (and self‐funders)
• Local authorities‐ commissioning of supported living and day support opportunities
• Councils may choose to set their thresholds at different bands (Critical, Substantial,
Moderate and Low – FACS)
• NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups – Residential homes (‘Group Homes’) and
nursing homes
Landscape of social care
2) Organisationally: majority (~90%) of adult social care outsourced to
the ‘Independent Sector’:
• Private (e.g. Care UK, Cygnet)
• Not‐for‐profit (e.g. Dimensions)
• Charity/voluntary sector
• E.g. Choice Support – serves around 900 people with learning disabilities
in London and the home counties)
• Micro‐enterprises (Needham, 2015)
Andrew PowerRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Health versus social care: Differences in
context and methods
Landscape of social care
(3) Legally: statutory duties under legislation are themselves fragmented.
Social care itself is divided up into a myriad of different roles, each with their
own legislative obligations and may or may not fall under statutory duties
E.g. advocacy is now a statutory duty of local authorities. (e.g. VoiceAbility)
Some forms of care fall outside of statutory provision, e.g. day support for
people assessed as having low or moderate needs.
• Hall & McGarroll (2012): growing number of disabled people in‐between, neither able
to readily move into work nor so significantly impaired as to qualify for social care.
Adult day support and care landscape also changing
Research
Andrew PowerRfSC Roadshow, 7th October 2020 Health versus social care: Differences in
context and methods
Methodology – ‘People Involvement’
• While PPI has a long tradition in health research, participatory and inclusive
methods have also been around for some time in social care research (Walmsley
and Johnson, 2008).
• These approaches have different lineages, partly in response to the specific
populations being studied (e.g. people with intellectual disabilities, dementia or
mental health issues). This can affect how researchers seek consent from and
engage with these groups.
• Social care users can also be very disempowered, so many researchers have
sought to develop more inclusive and emancipatory methodologies.
Methodology – ‘People Involvement’
• Inclusive research (Nind and Vinha, 2011) – sincere participatory approaches that
seek to reduce the power imbalance between researchers and participants in the
planning, conduct and dissemination of research.
• This typically involves closely working with a select group of people with lived
experiences (e.g. advisory group; co‐researchers).
• This method also seeks to design more inclusive methodological tools such as
interview facilitation materials (e.g. ‘People in My Life Circles’, ‘Weekly
timetables’, timelines) and photo‐voice.
• Costs are involved: more time is required and there is a fine‐line between
supporting participation and overburdening participants – asking permission and
setting boundaries between ‘my space, your space, our space’ can help.
Southampton Advisory Group and Research team
co‐creating the #SelfBuildingOurLives project logo
Andrew PowerYou can also read
