 So, before introducing the rest of the speakers, I'm just going to give a quick overview on how understanding patient experience can contribute to improved service delivery. And I'll include in my introductory slides a very brief example of patient experience research I've been involved in. For anybody interested in this topic, I really strongly recommend this edited book by Sue Zeblund and colleagues. And in the introduction to that book, the authors talk about the careful observation, measurement, recording, interpretation, and analysis of people's experience. Being really important in helping us appreciate in health systems, in health care, in clinical services, what's working well, what might need to change, and how we might go about making improvements. The patient experience is core to health systems quality, has also been highlighted a few years ago by this Lancet Global Health Commission on high quality health systems. So this paper in particular by Margaret Crook and colleagues talked about the importance of health systems being judged by their impact and that that impact includes positive patient experience. The paper also highlighted that health systems should be measuring and reporting what matters most to people, including user experience and including their confidence in the system. So what are the different methodological approaches we might use to understand patient or parent in the case of very young children's health experience? There are many different potential approaches. At the bottom there, there's secondary sources, so literature reviews and various different forms, increasingly the importance of reviewing what's being discussed and asked in social media. There are a diverse range of qualitative approaches, all of which bring different strengths and have different opportunities in terms of analyzing naturally occurring data across patient pathways, across pathways of care, as well as drawing out people's own accounts of their experiences, their priorities and their concerns. Quantitative approaches can help to numerically describe and compare experiences between different groups in different places and over time, as well as their reports on outcomes, which as with the previous slide are recognized as really key outcomes in themselves in health system quality. Participatory approaches can really help to reach with more innovative methods, particular patient groups or particular communities that might not be as easily heard through these other methods or reach through these other methods. Participatory approaches may include, for example, co-creation of dramas or stories and which methods and combinations of methods are drawn upon to understand the patient experience will depend on the specific question being asked, how the information is intended to be applied, the disciplinary background and experience, obviously, of the research team, as well as other practicalities such as timelines and resources available. In terms of actually using the research on patient experiences to strengthen service delivery, this might be done in a number of different ways. It might be through directly or indirectly communicating what's been learned with policymakers and trying to influence policy and practice. That might be, for instance, through sitting on task forces and thereby feeding into decision-making bodies. It might be through sharing academic research outputs, including through carefully designed materials with powerful visuals that help to have an impact and an influence. There can also be an increasingly emphasized, as mentioned earlier, in relation to the Lancet Commission findings, data collection on patient experience built into routine data as part of broader quality assurance approaches. But there can also be, and we'll hear some more about this today, experience-based co-design where users and implementers and researchers come together to design interventions, initiatives to strengthen service delivery directly and learn together. So just to give you one illustration of some work that I was involved in, which was Gathering Family Experiences. This was a qualitative piece of work conducted as part of a broader large observational cohort being run out of nine LMIC hospitals in different countries. And here the qualitative work was helping to contribute to characterizing the biomedical and social risk factors for mortality, post-discharge and identifying potential interventions. So as part of the qualitative work, in four sites, we held interviews with family members of 68 children who had been admitted into hospitals and we interviewed them several times in their homes, post-discharge, in order to get their narrative, their overall story and account of their treatment seeking experience. What we learned from these individual stories was how complex many of the treatment seeking pathways were. So in this diagram, each yellow box there and the line represents one treatment seeking journey for one patient and this is prior to hospital admission. Equally complex post-discharge and what these stories reflect is the number of steps, the amount of effort, the resources, the social work around family members trying to get care and support for their children. And what we saw across all of these different stories was a convergence of layers of structural and situational vulnerabilities for families with some agency revealed across those stories, but often that agency was constrained by those vulnerabilities and we saw that those vulnerabilities were influenced by a range of factors at all of the different levels, the system level, individual level, family and community level. And some of these boxes highlight those influences. And I've highlighted in there the importance of the perceived quality of care, including interpersonal dimensions in influencing patients' experiences and also their treatment seeking decisions and delays and their perceived well-being and their child's well-being across those journeys. And what we were able to do, drawing on those stories, was to recommend a package of interventions that we felt would be valuable, ideally working together and ideally co-designed with managers, with patients, with users and with implementers to be properly refined to make sure that they were affordable, sustainable and scalable. But this package of interventions would include these different elements, starting with a communication package. Of course, all of these interventions would be supported by deeper structural interventions dealing with some of the underlying causes of these challenges, including, for instance, health system resource challenges and poverty and social challenges within households and communities.