Biography

Nisha is a mixed-methods Researcher in Social Science at Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) at University of Oxford. She is a Co-investigator for the ESRC-JST funded project "Ensuring the benefits of AI for All: Designing a Sustainable Platform for Public and Professional Stakeholder Engagement". In collaboration with researchers at Osaka University, this project aims to understand the perceived impact of AI in healthcare for stakeholders including patients, public, and healthcare professionals, and explore effective strategies to support a platform for stakeholder engagement and involvement in the development and implementation of AI initiatives in healthcare.

Nisha is also working on a collaboration with Nordic partners (Norway, Sweden and Iceland) on the Nordforsk funded project ‘Governance of Health Data in Cyberspace’. This aims to understand public and expert views about how data should be shared for secondary purposes and what implications this has for stakeholders with reference to new ways of capturing and using data. This work will identify the most appropriate mechanisms that should be applied to govern the sharing of data across different contexts.  

Nisha has previously worked on the IMI (Innovative Medicines Initiative) funded project ‘European DIRECT (Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification)’, which investigated personalised medicine for Type II diabetes patients. She explored DIRECT’s research participants’ motivations and preferences for sharing their biomedical and genomic data beyond the end of the project.

She also led the Wellcome Trust funded project ‘Public Engagement for Biobanking Research’ (aka Waiting Room Project). This project investigated the opportunity to utilise time spent in clinic waiting rooms to engage public perceptions, through the use of digital technologies. It also explored views about key ethical issues about donating bio-samples and data for medical research.

Nisha's work prior to coming to HeLEX included research in areas of Health psychology, patient safety, digital health and implementation science, and infectious diseases at different academic insitutions in London.

 

Publications:

Soukup T, Lamb BW, Morbi A, et al. A multicentre cross‐sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making. Cancer Medicine. August 2020:cam4.3366. doi:10.1002/cam4.3366

Arora, S., Tsang, F., Kekecs, Z., Shah, N., Archer, S., Smith, J., & Darzi, A. (2020). Patient Safety Education 20 Years After the Institute of Medicine Report. Journal of Patient Safety, 1. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000676

Zawati, M. H., Chalmers, D., Dallari, S. G. et al (2019). Country Reports. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47(4), 582–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519897736

Martin, G., Arora, S., Shah, N., King, D., & Darzi, A. (2019). A regulatory perspective on the influence of health information technology on organisational quality and safety in England. Health Informatics Journal, 146045821985460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458219854602

Shah, N., Martin, G., Archer, S., Arora, S., King, D., & Darzi, A. (2019). Exploring mobile working in healthcare: clinical perspectives on transitioning to a mobile first culture of work. International Journal of Medical Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2019.03.003

Shah, N., Coathup, V., Teare, H., Forgie, I., Giordano, G. N., Hansen, T. H., … Kaye, J. (2019). Motivations for data sharing—views of research participants from four European countries: A DIRECT study. European Journal of Human Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0344-2

Shah, N., Coathup, V., Teare, H., Forgie, I., Giordano, G. N., Hansen, T. H., … Kaye, J. (2018). Sharing data for future research—engaging participants’ views about data governance beyond the original project: a DIRECT Study. Genetics in Medicine, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0299-7

Scott, S. E., Birt, L., Cavers, D., Shah, N., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. M. (2015). Patient drawings of their melanoma: A novel approach to understanding symptom perception and appraisal prior to health care. Psychology & Health, 30(9), 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2015.1016943

Shah, N., Castro-Sanchez, E., Charani, E., Drumright, L. N., & Holmes, A. H. (2015). Towards changing healthcare workers’ behaviour: A qualitative study exploring non-compliance through appraisals of infection prevention and control practices. Journal of Hospital Infection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2015.01.023

Castro-Sanchez, E., Charani, E., Drumright, L. N., Sevdalis, N., Shah, N., & Holmes, A. H. (2014). Fragmentation of care threatens patient safety in peripheral vascular catheter management in acute care- A qualitative study. PLoS ONE, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086167

Charani, E., Castro-Sanchez, E., Sevdalis, N., Kyratsis, Y., Drumright, L., Shah, N., & Holmes, A. (2013). Understanding the Determinants of Antimicrobial Prescribing Within Hospitals: The Role of Prescribing Etiquette. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit212

Publications

Displaying 1 - 12 of 12. Sorted by year, then title.
Filter by
  • Soukup T, Lamb B, Morbi A and N Shah and others, 'A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making' (2020) Cancer Medicine
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3366
    Background Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case‐complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making. Methods This was a cross‐sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions. Results The full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R2 = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R2 = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time‐workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time‐workload pressures (P = .001). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive‐catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time‐workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety.
  • Arora S, Tsang F, Kekecs Z and N Shah, 'Patient Safety Education 20 Years After the Institute of Medicine Report Results From a Cross-sectional National Survey' (2020) Journal of Patient Safety
    DOI: doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000676
    Objectives Educating healthcare professionals in patient safety is essential to achieving sustainable improvements in care. This study aimed to identify the key constituents of patient safety education alongside its facilitators and barriers from a frontline perspective. Methods An electronic survey was sent to 592 healthcare professionals and educators in patient safety education in the United Kingdom. Two independent reviewers conducted a thematic analysis of the free-text data. Themes focused on effective content, learning practices and facilitators and barriers to patient safety education. Results Of 592 individuals completing the survey, 545 (92%) submitted analyzable responses. Interrater reliability of coding was high with Cohen k value of 0.86. Participants endorsed experiential and interactive learning as ideal modalities for delivery and expressed a need for content to be based on real clinical cases and tailored to the needs of the learners. The most commonly mentioned facilitators were standardization of methods and assessment (49%), dedicated funding (21%), and culture of openness (20%). Staffing problems and high workload (41%) and lack of accessibility of training (23%) were identified as primary barriers of efficacy and uptake. Conclusions This study identified key factors to the success of patient safety education in terms of content and delivery alongside facilitators and barriers. Future curricula developers and interventions should improve standardization, funding, culture, and access so as to optimize education programs to enhance patient safety.
  • Zawati MH, Chalmers D, Dallari SG and N Shah and others, Country Reports (The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47 2019)
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519897736
  • N Shah, Coathup V and Teare H and others, 'Sharing data for future research—engaging participants’ views about data governance beyond the original project: a DIRECT Study' (2018) 21 Genetics and Medicine 1131
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0299-7
    Purpose Biomedical data governance strategies should ensure that data are collected, stored, and used ethically and lawfully. However, research participants’ preferences for how data should be governed is least studied. The Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification (DIRECT) project collected substantial amounts of health and genetic information from patients at risk of, and with type II diabetes. We conducted a survey to understand participants’ future data governance preferences. Results will inform the postproject data governance strategy. Methods A survey was distributed in Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Results In total 855 surveys were returned. Ninety-seven percent were supportive of sharing data postproject, and 90% were happy to share data with universities, and 56% with commercial companies. The top three priorities for data sharing were highly secure database, DIRECT researchers to monitor data used by other researchers, and researchers cannot identify participants. Respondents frequently suggested that a postproject Data Access Committee should involve a DIRECT researcher, diabetes clinician, patient representative, and a DIRECT participant. Conclusion Preferences of how data should be governed, and what data could be shared and with whom varied between countries. Researchers are considered as key custodians of participant data. Engaging participants aids in designing governance to support their choices.

Research programmes

Research projects

Research Interests

Research methods and statistics, AI in healthcare, digital health, health informatics, health equity, and patient safety.

Research projects