Sarah Drabble
University of Sheffield
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Sarah Drabble.
Trials | 2014
Alicia O’Cathain; Jackie Goode; Sarah Drabble; Kate Thomas; Anne Rudolph; Jenny Hewison
BackgroundQualitative research is undertaken with randomized controlled trials of health interventions. Our aim was to explore the perceptions of researchers with experience of this endeavour to understand the added value of qualitative research to the trial in practice.MethodsA telephone semi-structured interview study with 18 researchers with experience of undertaking the trial and/or the qualitative research.ResultsInterviewees described the added value of qualitative research for the trial, explaining how it solved problems at the pretrial stage, explained findings, and helped to increase the utility of the evidence generated by the trial. From the interviews, we identified three models of relationship of the qualitative research to the trial. In ‘the peripheral’ model, the trial was an opportunity to undertake qualitative research, with no intention that it would add value to the trial. In ‘the add-on’ model, the qualitative researcher understood the potential value of the qualitative research but it was viewed as a separate and complementary endeavour by the trial lead investigator and wider team. Interviewees described how this could limit the value of the qualitative research to the trial. Finally ‘the integral’ model played out in two ways. In ‘integral-in-theory’ studies, the lead investigator viewed the qualitative research as essential to the trial. However, in practice the qualitative research was under-resourced relative to the trial, potentially limiting its ability to add value to the trial. In ‘integral-in-practice’ studies, interviewees described how the qualitative research was planned from the beginning of the study, senior qualitative expertise was on the team from beginning to end, and staff and time were dedicated to the qualitative research. In these studies interviewees described the qualitative research adding value to the trial although this value was not necessarily visible beyond the original research team due to the challenges of publishing this research.ConclusionsHealth researchers combining qualitative research and trials viewed this practice as strengthening evaluative research. Teams viewing the qualitative research as essential to the trial, and resourcing it in practice, may have a better chance of delivering its added value to the trial.
BMC Medical Research Methodology | 2014
Sarah Drabble; Alicia O’Cathain; Kate Thomas; Anne Rudolph; Jenny Hewison
BackgroundThere is growing recognition of the value of conducting qualitative research with trials in health research. It is timely to reflect on how this qualitative research is presented in grant proposals to identify lessons for researchers and research commissioners. As part of a larger study focusing on how to maximise the value of undertaking qualitative research with trials, we undertook a documentary analysis of proposals of funded studies.MethodsUsing the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) database we identified trials funded in the United Kingdom, ongoing between 2001 and 2010, and reporting the use of qualitative research. We requested copies of proposals from lead researchers. We extracted data from the proposals using closed and open questions, analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis respectively.Results2% (89/3812) of trials in the mRCT database described the use of qualitative research undertaken with the trial. From these 89 trials, we received copies of 36 full proposals, of which 32 met our inclusion criteria. 25% used less than a single paragraph to describe the qualitative research. The aims of the qualitative research described in these proposals focused mainly on the intervention or trial conduct. Just over half (56%) of the proposals included an explicit rationale for conducting the qualitative research with the trial, the most frequent being to optimise implementation into clinical practice or to interpret trial findings. Key information about methods, expertise and resources was missing in a large minority of proposals, in particular sample size, type of analysis, and non-personnel resources. 28% specifically stated that qualitative researchers would conduct the qualitative research.ConclusionsOur review of proposals of successfully funded studies identified good practice but also identified limited space given to describing the qualitative research, with an associated lack of attention to the rationale for doing the qualitative research and important methodological details. Acknowledging the space restrictions faced by researchers writing grant proposals, we suggest a starting point for providing practical guidance to help researchers write proposals and research commissioners assess proposals of qualitative research with trials.
Journal of Medical Internet Research | 2016
Alicia O'Cathain; Sarah Drabble; Alexis Foster; Kimberley Horspool; Louisa Edwards; Clare Thomas; Chris Salisbury
Background Evidence of benefit for telehealth for chronic conditions is mixed. Two linked randomized controlled trials tested the Healthlines Service for 2 chronic conditions: depression and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This new telehealth service consisted of regular telephone calls from nonclinical, trained health advisers who followed standardized scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self-management by supporting participants to use Web-based resources and helped to optimize medication, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. Participants were recruited from primary care. The trials identified moderate (for depression) or partial (for CVD risk) effectiveness of the Healthlines Service. Objective An embedded qualitative study was undertaken to help explain the results of the 2 trials by exploring mechanisms of action, context, and implementation of the intervention. Methods Qualitative interview study of 21 staff providing usual health care or involved in the intervention and 24 patients receiving the intervention. Results Interviewees described improved outcomes in some patients, which they attributed to the intervention, describing how components of the model on which the intervention was based helped to achieve benefits. Implementation of the intervention occurred largely as planned. However, contextual issues in patients’ lives and some problems with implementation may have reduced the size of effect of the intervention. For depression, patients’ lives and preferences affected engagement with the intervention: these largely working-age patients had busy and complex lives, which affected their ability to engage, and some patients preferred a therapist-based approach to the cognitive behavioral therapy on offer. For CVD risk, patients’ motivations adversely affected the intervention whereby some patients joined the trial for general health improvement or from altruism, rather than motivation to make lifestyle changes to address their specific risk factors. Implementation was not optimal in the early part of the CVD risk trial owing to technical difficulties and the need to adapt the intervention for use in practice. For both conditions, enthusiastic and motivated staff offering continuity of intervention delivery tailored to individual patients’ needs were identified as important for patient engagement with telehealth; this was not delivered consistently, particularly in the early stages of the trials. Finally, there was a lack of active engagement from primary care. Conclusions The conceptual model was supported and could be used to develop further telehealth interventions for chronic conditions. It may be possible to increase the effectiveness of this, and similar interventions, by attending to the human as well as the technical aspects of telehealth: offering it to patients actively wanting the intervention, ensuring continuity of delivery by enthusiastic and motivated staff, and encouraging active engagement from primary care staff.
BMC Psychiatry | 2016
Kimberley Horspool; Sarah Drabble; Alicia O’Cathain
BackgroundStreet Triage is a collaborative service between mental health workers and police which aims to improve the emergency response to individuals experiencing crisis, but peer reviewed evidence of the effectiveness of these services is limited. We examined the design and potential impact of two services, along with factors that hindered and facilitated the implementation of the services.MethodsWe conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with mental health and police stakeholders with experience of a Street Triage service in two locations of the UK. Framework analysis identified themes related to key aspects of the Street Triage service, perceived benefits of Street Triage, and ways in which the service could be developed in the future.ResultsStakeholders endorsed the Street Triage services which utilised different operating models. These models had several components including a joint response vehicle or a mental health worker in a police control room. Operating models were developed with consideration of the local geographical and population density. The ability to make referrals to the existing mental health service was perceived as key to the success of the service yet there was evidence to suggest Street Triage had the potential to increase pressure on already stretched mental health and police services. Identifying staff with skills and experience for Street Triage work was important, and their joint response resulted in shared decision making which was less risk averse for the police and regarded as in the interest of patient care by mental health professionals. Collaboration during Street Triage improved the understanding of roles and responsibilities in the ‘other’ agency and led to the development of local information sharing agreements. Views about the future direction of the service focused on expansion of Street Triage to address other shared priorities such as frequent users of police and mental health services, and a reduction in the police involvement in crisis response.ConclusionThe Street Triage service received strong support from stakeholders involved in it. Referral to existing health services is a key function of Street Triage, and its impact on referral behaviour requires rigorous evaluation. Street Triage may result in improvement to collaborative working but competing demands for resources within mental health and police services presented challenges for implementation.
Journal of Cystic Fibrosis | 2016
Madelynne A. Arden; Sarah Drabble; Alicia O'Cathain; Marlene Hutchings; M. Wildman
preceding year. Patients underwent an EIT (PulmoVista 500, Drager) monitoring at basal condition (T0 after at least 12 hours from the last nebulization and physiotherapy) and afterwards during 2 minutes of PEP mask breathing in sitting position (T2m) using resistance levels usually used by patient, able to allow 20 cm H2O of sustained expiratory pressure without effort. Results: During T0 it has been possible to identify and quantify rates of regional ventilation as percent (optimal value of 25%) for each region of interest (vROI%). At T0 the mean vROI of the worse ventilated regions was 18.25% (8–21%) which improved to a mean value of 25.8% (22–34) during T2m. Values >25% were observed in 6/8 patients. Conclusion: EIT is a non invasive method, radiation free, that provides continuous real-time dynamic images of lung ventilation at the bedside, measuring the electrical potentials at chest wall surface. Providing a quantitative and qualitative (lung cross-sectional images) evaluation of lung ventilation, EIT allows to monitor the effects of recruitment manoeuvres and to guide possible changes to improve efficacy. Positive effects observed in our patients need further studies to implement the role of EIT in CF management.
Health Technology Assessment | 2014
Alicia O’Cathain; Kate Thomas; Sarah Drabble; Anne Rudolph; Jackie Goode; Jenny Hewison
Archive | 2015
Sarah Drabble; Alicia O’Cathain
Trials | 2013
Alicia O'Cathain; Kate Thomas; Sarah Drabble; Anne Rudolph; Jenny Hewison
Programme Grants for Applied Research | 2017
Chris Salisbury; Alicia O'Cathain; Clare Thomas; Louisa Edwards; Alan A Montgomery; Sandra Hollinghurst; Shirley Large; Jon Nicholl; Catherine Pope; Anne Rogers; Glyn Lewis; Tom Fahey; Lucy Yardley; Simon Brownsell; Padraig Dixon; Sarah Drabble; Lisa Esmonde; Alexis Foster; Katy Garner; Daisy Gaunt; Kim Horspool; Mei-See Man; Alison Rowsell; Julia Segar
Archive | 2017
Chris Salisbury; Alicia O’Cathain; Clare Thomas; Louisa Edwards; Alan A Montgomery; Sandra Hollinghurst; Shirley Large; Jon Nicholl; Catherine Pope; Anne Rogers; Glyn Lewis; Tom Fahey; Lucy Yardley; Simon Brownsell; Padraig Dixon; Sarah Drabble; Lisa Esmonde; Alexis Foster; Katy Garner; Daisy Gaunt; Kim Horspool; Mei-See Man; Alison Rowsell; Julia Segar