This paper reports on research into a community development approach to supporting young carers, adopted in one city in Scotland (UK) to increase the numbers of 'identified' young carers, and to inform an assets-based approach to addressing their needs. A research team of twelve young carers and four practitioners, led by a senior practitioner, co-designed and conducted the research. Secondary data was co-analysed to identify gaps and inform the design of an online questionnaire, completed by 243 young people and 43 practitioners. Additionally, 23 people participated in semi-structured interviews, and 13 young carers participated in creative workshops. We found that the community development approach generated an increase in numbers of young carers identified and supported (through targeted and universal services and informally). Embedding community development values in practice contributed to this by reducing stigma, and empowering young carers to lead in awareness raising and provision of support. The community development approach demonstrated how embedding a non-deficit culture and a genuine commitment to 'making it work' (through awareness-raising and collaboration on complementary practices) offers the potential to mobilise assets and encourage positive, and meaningful joint endeavours between young carers, families, schools and agencies.
Introduction This research investigates how community-led organisations' (CLOs') use of assets-based approaches improves health and well-being, and how that might be different in different contexts. Assets-based approaches involve 'doing with' rather than 'doing to' and bring people in communities together to achieve positive change using their own knowledge, skills and experience. Some studies have shown that such approaches can have a positive effect on health and well-being. However, research is limited, and we know little about which approaches lead to which outcomes and how different contexts might affect success. Methods and analysis Using a realist approach, we will work with 15 CLOs based in disadvantaged communities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A realist synthesis of review papers, and a policy analysis in different contexts, precedes qualitative interviews and workshops with stakeholders, to find out how CLOs' programmes work and identify existing data. We will explore participants' experiences through: a Q methodology study; participatory photography workshops; qualitative interviews and measure outcomes using a longitudinal survey, with 225 CLO participants, to assess impact for people who connect with the CLOs. An economic analysis will estimate costs and benefits to participants, for different contexts and mechanisms. A 'Lived Experience Panel' of people connected with our CLOs as participants or volunteers, will ensure the appropriateness of the research, interpretation and reporting of findings. Ethics and dissemination This project, research tools and consent processes have been approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, and affirmed by Ethics Committees at Bournemouth University, Queen's University Belfast and the University of East London. Common Health Assets does not involve any National Health Service sites, staff or patients. Findings will be presented through social media, project website, blogs, policy briefings, journal articles, conferences and visually in short digital stories, and photographic exhibitions.
BackgroundThe emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in the final months of 2019 had the health officials declare a public emergency raising a global response. In response to the burden of the current pandemic, strict measurements were globally implemented to stop further transmission of the virus. These Measurements rely on an accurate diagnosis of individuals infected with the virus by using real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). The goal of our study is to relate the fundamental clinical and analytical performance of chosen kits of RT-PCR from distinct manufacturers. Methods A total of 94 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal clinical samples were selected randomly, these samples were previously confirmed as 64 positives, and 30 negatives for SARS-COV-2. Generally, 400 µl of each respiratory specimen was subjected to extraction using ExiPrep 96 Viral RNA Kit with the ExiPrep 96 Lite Automated NA Purification System. All kits master mix preparation, cycling protocol, and results interpretation were carried out according to the manufactures’ instructions of use and recommendations. Results In our study, we were able to evaluate the performance of 12 commercial kits in detecting SARS-COV-2 using 5 different targets. The performance of the kits was comparable except for LYRA kit as it was less sensitive (F=67, P <0.001). Particularly, the performance of RealStar, BGI, DiaPlexQ, Genesig, LightMix, TaqPath, and RADI kits were the most sensitive. Moreover, the performance of these commercial kits by gene target showed no significant change in Ct values which indicates that kits disparities are mainly linked to the choice of the gene target (F=0.49, P=0.73).ConclusionWe believe that most of the commercially available RT-PCR kits included in this study can be used for routine diagnosis of SARS-COV-2 patients. Moreover, we recommend that regardless of the laboratory choice of diagnostic commercial kit for the clinical detection of COVID-19 patients the need a for good plan for validation and collaboration with exterior laboratories is essential in order to monitor the virus changes overtime, procedures, technicians, and the different kits performances.
