Dataset Information

Attending to design when developing complex health interventions: A qualitative interview study with intervention developers and associated stakeholders.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Guidance and frameworks exist to assist those developing health interventions but may offer limited discussion of 'design', the part of development concerned with generating ideas for and making decisions about an intervention's content, format and delivery. The aim of this paper is to describe and understand the views and experiences of developers and associated stakeholders in relation to how design occurs in health intervention development. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 people who had developed complex interventions to improve health and/or who were relevant stakeholders (e.g. funders and publishers of intervention development work), regarding their views, experiences and approaches to intervention design. Sampling was purposive in terms of maximising diversity. A thematic inductive analysis was conducted. RESULTS:Approaches to design varied substantially between intervention developers. This contrasted with consistency in other activities undertaken during development, such as literature review. Design also posed more challenges than other parts of development. We identified six 'modes' of design: informed; negotiated; structured; delegated; 'my baby'; and creative partnership. In understanding the differences between these different modes, and the challenges posed by intervention design, we identified three key themes: enabling creativity during the design process; working with different types of knowledge; and 'stabilising' (developing clear shared understandings of) the intervention development to enable design. CONCLUSIONS:Design has received less attention than other activities undertaken when developing interventions to improve health. Developers take a variety of approaches to design and often find it challenging. Guidance for intervention development in health has tended to see design as proceeding in a predictable and controlled manner from acquired knowledge. Our study suggests that design rarely reflects this rational ideal. Future guidance on intervention development in healthcare should support developers to work effectively with different types of knowledge, to help design progress more smoothly and to maximise creativity.

SUBMITTER: Rousseau N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6793869 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Attending to design when developing complex health interventions: A qualitative interview study with intervention developers and associated stakeholders.

Rousseau Nikki N Turner Katrina M KM Duncan Edward E O'Cathain Alicia A Croot Liz L Yardley Lucy L Hoddinott Pat P

PloS one 20191015 10

<h4>Background</h4>Guidance and frameworks exist to assist those developing health interventions but may offer limited discussion of 'design', the part of development concerned with generating ideas for and making decisions about an intervention's content, format and delivery. The aim of this paper is to describe and understand the views and experiences of developers and associated stakeholders in relation to how design occurs in health intervention development.<h4>Methods</h4>Semi-structured in ...[more]

PMID: 31613913

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIdentify how individuals involved in developing complex health and healthcare interventions (developers), and wider stakeholders in the endeavour, such as funders, define successful intervention development and what factors influence how interventions are developed.DesignIn-depth interviews with developers and wider stakeholders to explore their views and experiences of developing complex health and healthcare interventions.SettingInterviews conducted with individuals in the UK, Europe and North America.ParticipantsTwenty-one individuals were interviewed: 15 developers and 6 wider stakeholders. Seventeen participants were UK based.ResultsMost participants defined successful intervention development as a process that resulted in effective interventions that were relevant, acceptable and could be implemented in real-world contexts. Accounts also indicated that participants aimed to develop interventions that end users wanted, and to undertake a development process that was methodologically rigorous and provided research evidence for journal publications and future grant applications. Participants' ambitions to develop interventions that had real-world impact drove them to consider the intervention's feasibility and long-term sustainability early in the development process. However, this process was also driven by other factors: the realities of resource-limited health contexts; prespecified research funder priorities; a reluctance to deviate from grant application protocols to incorporate evidence and knowledge acquired during the development process; limited funding to develop interventions and the need for future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to prove effectiveness. Participants expressed concern that these drivers discouraged long-term thinking and the development of innovative interventions, and prioritised evaluation over development and future implementation.ConclusionsTensions exist between developers' goal of developing interventions that improve health in the real world, current funding structures, the limited resources within healthcare contexts, and the dominance of the RCT for evaluation of these interventions. There is a need to review funding processes and expectations of gold standard evaluation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:New opportunities to record, collate, and analyze routine patient data have prompted optimism about the potential of learning health systems. However, real-life examples of such systems remain rare and few have been exposed to study. We aimed to examine the views of design stakeholders on designing and implementing a US-based registry-enabled care and learning system for cystic fibrosis (RCLS-CF). METHODS:We conducted a two-phase qualitative study with stakeholders involved in designing, implementing, and using the RCLS-CF. First, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 program personnels involved in design and delivery of the program. We then undertook 11 follow-up interviews. Analysis of interviews was based on the constant comparative method, supported by NVivo software. RESULTS:The organizing principle for the RCLS-CF was a shift to more partnership-based relationships between patients and clinicians, founded in values of co-production, and facilitated by technology-enabled data sharing. Participants proposed that, for the system to be successful, the data it collects must be both clinically useful and meaningful to patients and clinicians. They suggested that the prerequisites included a technological infrastructure capable of supporting data entry and joint decision-making in an accessible way, and a set of social conditions, including willingness from patients and clinicians alike to work together in new ways that build on the expertise of both parties. Follow-up interviews highlighted some of the obstacles, including technical challenges and practical constraints on refiguring relationships between clinicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS:The values and vision underlying the RCLS-CF were shared and clearly and consistently articulated by design stakeholders. The challenges to realization were often not at the level of principle, but were both practical and social in character. Lessons from this study may be useful to other systems looking to harness the power of "big data" registries, including patient-reported data, for care, research, and quality improvement.

Project description:BackgroundeHealth interventions may represent the way forward in following up patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after hospital discharge to support them in coping with the illness, strengthen their self-management, and increase their quality of life. By involving end users of eHealth in cocreation processes when designing eHealth solutions, an acceptable and relevant product can be secured. Stakeholders' perspectives could aid in closing the gap between research-developed products and the implementation of eHealth services in real-life scenarios.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore the views of patients with CRC, their informal caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) on information technology and the design of eHealth support in CRC care.MethodsA qualitative, explorative design was used to conduct 31 semistructured individual interviews with 41% (13/31) patients with CRC, 29% (9/31) informal caregivers, and 29% (9/31) HCPs recruited from the gastrosurgical ward of a university hospital in southwestern Norway. A semistructured interview guide was used for data collection, and the data were analyzed by systematic text condensation.ResultsParticipants described the diverse experiences of patients with CRC seeking web-based information. Age and digital competence were highlighted as influencers of the use of information technology. Patients rarely received advice from HCPs about relevant and secure websites containing information on CRC diagnosis and treatment. Features of desired eHealth interventions in following up patients with CRC were patient education, health monitoring, and communication with HCPs.ConclusionsSeveral elements affect the activities of patients with CRC seeking health information. Age, inexperience with computer technology, and lack of access to web-based health information may reduce the ability of patients with CRC to engage in decision-making processes regarding illness and treatment. An eHealth service for patients with CRC should comprise features for information, education, and support for self-management and should aim to be individually adapted to the patient's age and digital competence. Involving end users of eHealth services is necessary to ensure high-quality tailored services that are perceived as user friendly and relevant to the end users.

Project description:Feedback is an important aspect of teaching and learning in medical education. Irrespective of the training environment, too little effective dialogic feedback occurs. Community-based outpatient learning environments, such as general practitioner practices, have heterogeneous framework conditions regarding feedback that decrease feedback quality. To improve feedback in this setting, characteristics of feedback in such learning environments must be considered. This study aims to reveal such characteristics from different perspectives and derive ideas for improving feedback in community-based learning environments. Three stakeholder groups in family medicine clerkships as an example of community-based learning environments (n = 15 students, n = 12 faculty and administrative staff, n = 13 general physician trainers) were interviewed for this study. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis. All stakeholders interviewed note a lack of feedback between groups. Feedback in primary care practices takes place in specific contexts (e.g., during vs after a consultation, during vs at the end of the clerkship) and is provided in different ways (e.g., verbal vs nonverbal). Barriers of effective feedback in community-based settings are: lack of opportunity/initiation, fear of giving feedback, unawareness (of correct feedback and/or lack of prior experience with feedback), and little basis for feedback. Currently, the exchange between the university and community-based learning environments is limited to grading and report writing, with little sharing of meaningful information. The potential of a better exchange between those within community-based learning environments and the university to improve feedback processes is not reached. This exchange and the framework conditions specific for the community-based learning environment should be considered as parts of the structural dimension of feedback. Teachers and course managers of family medicine institutes are in an important position to shape these factors actively, working together with stakeholders of community-based teaching.

Project description:Increased patient demand for healthcare services coupled with a shortage of general practitioners necessitates changes in professional roles and service delivery. In 2016, NHS England began a 3-year- pilot study of pharmacists in general practice, however, this is not an entirely new initiative. There is limited, current, evidence-based, UK research to inform the pilot so studies of pre-existing services must suffice until findings from a formal national evaluation are available.The aim of this exploratory, descriptive interview study was to explore the experiences of stakeholders in eight general practices in the Ealing GP Federation, West London, where pharmacy services have been provided for several years. Forty-seven participants, including pharmacy team members (pre-registration and clinical pharmacists, independent prescribers and pharmacy technicians), general practitioners, patients, practice managers, practice nurses and receptionists took part in semi-structured, audio-recorded qualitative interviews which were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically to extract the issues raised by participants and the practicalities of providing pharmacy services in general practice.Findings are reported under the themes of Complementarity (incorporating roles, skills, education and workloads); Integration (incorporating relationships, trust and communication) and Practicalities (incorporating location and space, access, and costs). Participants reported the need for time to develop and understand the various roles, develop communication processes and build inter-professional trust. Once these were established, however, experiences were positive and included decreased workloads, increased patient safety, improved job satisfaction, improved patient relationships, and enhanced cost savings. Areas for improvement included patients' awareness of services; pharmacists' training; and regular, onsite access for practice staff to the pharmacy team.Recommendations are made for the development of clear role definitions, identification of training needs, dedication of time for team building, production of educational materials for practice staff members and patients, and provision of on-site, full-time pharmacy services. Future work should focus on evaluation of various models of employing pharmacy teams in general practice; integration of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians into multidisciplinary general practice teams; relationships between local community pharmacy and general practice personnel; and patients' service and information needs. A formal national evaluation of the pilot scheme is overdue.

Project description:BackgroundIntegrating healthcare services across and between the different health system levels can be achieved in a few ways; however, examining the social side of integration is essential and challenging. This paper explores the concept of integration perceived by general practitioners (GPs) and primary care network (PCN) representatives from the regional health systems (RHS) in a GP-RHS PCN and their perceived partnership success.MethodsIn this study, we explored three GP-RHS PCNs in Singapore. We used a qualitative research design and, overall, performed 17 semi-structured in-depth interviews with GPs (n = 11) and PCN representatives (n = 6) from the RHS. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. We conducted thematic analysis to inductively identify themes from the data. Singer's conceptual model of integration types was used as guiding principles to derive relevant and salient themes for integration.ResultsGPs and the RHS perceived the concept of integration through a series of interrelated strategies. Within the normative dimension, a sense of urgency motivated GPs to integrate improvements into their general practice. Participants perceived teamwork and relational climate as appropriate enablers for achieving interpersonal integration in a primary care partnership. While developing a trusted relationship was a perceived success of this partnership across the network, developing camaraderie and gaining knowledge in chronic disease management through the components of functional integration was a perceived success at an individual general practice level. The data also revealed some operational challenges within the structural dimension and some inabilities of the PCN to achieve complete process integration.ConclusionsOur study points to multi-faceted integration, comprising various forms that need to be manifested at all levels of care to achieve coordinated, seamless, and comprehensive care for patients suffering from chronic conditions. The present iteration of the PCN has been shown to offer integration at a level that warrants praise but still requires structural and process integration improvement.

Dataset Information

Attending to design when developing complex health interventions: A qualitative interview study with intervention developers and associated stakeholders.

Publications

Attending to design when developing complex health interventions: A qualitative interview study with intervention developers and associated stakeholders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets