Dataset Information

Collaborative learning framework for online stakeholder engagement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Public and stakeholder engagement can improve the quality of both research and policy decision making. However, such engagement poses significant methodological challenges in terms of collecting and analysing input from large, diverse groups.

Objective

To explain how online approaches can facilitate iterative stakeholder engagement, to describe how input from large and diverse stakeholder groups can be analysed and to propose a collaborative learning framework (CLF) to interpret stakeholder engagement results.

Methods

We use 'A National Conversation on Reducing the Burden of Suicide in the United States' as a case study of online stakeholder engagement and employ a Bayesian data modelling approach to develop a CLF.

Results

Our data modelling results identified six distinct stakeholder clusters that varied in the degree of individual articulation and group agreement and exhibited one of the three learning styles: learning towards consensus, learning by contrast and groupthink. Learning by contrast was the most common, or dominant, learning style in this study.

Conclusion

Study results were used to develop a CLF, which helps explore multitude of stakeholder perspectives; identifies clusters of participants with similar shifts in beliefs; offers an empirically derived indicator of engagement quality; and helps determine the dominant learning style. The ability to detect learning by contrast helps illustrate differences in stakeholder perspectives, which may help policymakers, including Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, make better decisions by soliciting and incorporating input from patients, caregivers, health-care providers and researchers. Study results have important implications for soliciting and incorporating input from stakeholders with different interests and perspectives.

SUBMITTER: Khodyakov D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5049448 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesProjections that 60 transformative cell and gene therapies could be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within 10 years underscore an urgent need to modernize the newborn screening (NBS) system. This study convened expert stakeholders to assess challenges to the NBS system and propose solutions for its modernization.MethodsNBS stakeholders (researchers, clinicians, state NBS leaders, advocates, industry professionals, and current/former advisory committee members) participated in one of five mixed-stakeholder panel discussions. Prior to panels, participants completed a survey in which they reviewed and ranked NBS challenges generated from relevant literature. During panels, participants deliberated on challenges and explored potential solutions. Pre-panel survey data were analyzed descriptively. Data from panel discussions were analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis.ResultsMedian scores of the ranked challenges (1 = most important) reveal the top three most important barriers to address: critical missing data for NBS decision-making (Median = 2), burden on state NBS laboratories (Median = 3), and the amount of time required for state-level implementation of screening for new conditions (Median = 4). Panel discussions were rooted in recurring themes: the infant's well-being should be the focal point; the transformative therapy pipeline, although undeniably positive for individuals with rare diseases, is a threat to NBS capacity; decisions about modernizing NBS should be evidence-based; additional financial support is required but not sufficient for modernization; and modernization will require participation of multiple NBS stakeholders. This final overarching theme is reported in depth, including expertise, coordination, and collaboration challenges facing NBS and novel approaches to oversight, partnership, and coordination that were suggested by participants.ConclusionsThis study engaged representatives from multiple stakeholder groups to generate potential solutions to challenges facing NBS in the United States. These solutions provide a rich starting point for policy makers and other stakeholders who desire to maximize the impact of new transformative therapies for babies, families, and society.

Project description:IntroductionResilience in healthcare (RiH) can be conceptualised as the adaptive capacities of a healthcare system that allow it to maintain the delivery of high-quality care during and after events that challenge, change or disrupt its activities. These adaptive capacities require collaborative learning and working, as the complexities of changes and challenges can rarely be addressed by individuals alone or single healthcare disciplinary knowledge. So, there is a need to understand how collaborative learning practices can be developed and supported both intra and inter disciplinary in healthcare. The aim of the study is to explore the relationship between collaborative learning, and resilience to establish a framework that supports the development and application of adaptive capacities across diverse healthcare contexts and levels. Collaborative learning is premised on learning as something that occurs continuously through everyday work in the healthcare systems as professionals engaging in clinical work, and interacting with other coworkers, patients and stakeholders making local adaptations in respond to needs.Method and analysisThe study applies a mixed methods design in a two-phased approach to explore and develop the relationship between collaborative learning and resilience. Phase One is exploratory using literature review, meta-synthesis, interviews and focus groups as data collection methods in empirical studies in different healthcare contexts. Phase Two uses participatory approach to develop and test a collaborative learning framework followed by an evaluation to appraise its utility using observation and focus groups as data collection procedures.Ethics and disseminationPhase One of the study is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 864334). The findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, presentations at international conferences and through social media and popular press. This includes establishing a set of learning tools for adaptive use, that is made publicly available in Open Access repositories.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity and stakeholder involvement in decision-making to determine publicly-funded health services and interventions is advocated to fulfil citizens' rights and improve health outcomes. The inclusion of public actors, particularly disadvantaged populations, in priority setting for universal health coverage (UHC) is also enshrined in guidance from the World Health Organization (WHO). However, challenges remain in operationalising this policy aim and ensuring that these approaches are effective and equitable. This study aimed to synthesise published evidence on the role of community and stakeholder participation in determining health service coverage.MethodsA systematic review was conducted, searching the Web of Science, Ovid Global Health, and PubMed Central databases from 2000 onwards, including all study types. A framework synthesis approach was used for charting and synthesising data on mechanisms, effectiveness (equity, depth, and stage), and barriers and facilitators for engagement.ResultsTwenty-seven relevant studies were identified that involve community actors and other stakeholders in priority setting and decision-making processes for defining health benefit packages and UHC, health technology assessment, and pharmaceutical coverage. Mechanisms of engagement include a wide variety of consultation approaches; participation in decision-making committees, advisory councils, and local planning meetings; and appeals mechanisms. Participation occurs primarily at Data and Dialogue stages of decision-making processes, and we found limited depth of engagement among identified cases. Limited consideration of equity was observed in planning and reporting on community involvement in priority setting. A number of challenges are identified in the literature, which we typologise as institutional, procedural, technical, and structural / normative barriers to meaningful participation.ConclusionsThis systematic review identifies key gaps and opportunities in the literature and practice related to effective and equitable community and stakeholder participation in determining health service coverage. It offers essential considerations for planning and executing inclusive approaches to priority setting for publicly-funded health services and interventions and defining health benefit packages for UHC.