Dataset Information

What families really think about the quality of early intervention centers: a perspective from mixed methods.

ABSTRACT: Background:Families are a fundamental aspect in the current perspective of Early Intervention, and knowing their opinion with quantitative and qualitative research is necessary for its improvement. The objective of this research was to evaluate the quality of the service perceived in Early Intervention Centers and its relationship with satisfaction and future intention, as well as to identify factors that are associated with the perception of users. Methods:A measurement model of 50 items and an open question to gather qualitative information was used in a sample of 233 participants. A confirmatory factor analysis and a regression analysis were conducted. Regarding the qualitative data, the information was subjected to a thematic content analysis in order to delve into the perception of the participants. Results:The model showed a satisfactory fit and the regression analysis indicated that treatment rooms (? = - 0.28) and adaptation of activities (? = 0.27) have greater weight with respect to satisfaction, whereas for future intention, the factors of greater weight were adaptation of activities (? = 0.23) and location (? = 0.20). The qualitative analysis showed three themes: facilitators, barriers and suggestions for improvement. Within facilitators, the participants were satisfied with the Early Intervention professionals, and they made improvement suggestions for the detected barriers to improve the facilities and the follow-up of the child. Conclusions:The study offers a wide perspective of the perception of the service with an active participation of families in the treatment within the Early Intervention service. This will allow professionals in Early Intervention, service providers and researchers to consider the families as intervention agents capable of providing their opinion and making decisions, and not only as passive elements.

SUBMITTER: Romero-Galisteo RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7583605 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What families really think about the quality of early intervention centers: a perspective from mixed methods.

Romero-Galisteo Rita Pilar RP Gálvez Ruiz Pablo P Blanco Villaseñor Angel A Rodríguez-Bailón Maria M González-Sánchez Manuel M

PeerJ 20201020

<h4>Background</h4>Families are a fundamental aspect in the current perspective of Early Intervention, and knowing their opinion with quantitative and qualitative research is necessary for its improvement. The objective of this research was to evaluate the quality of the service perceived in Early Intervention Centers and its relationship with satisfaction and future intention, as well as to identify factors that are associated with the perception of users.<h4>Methods</h4>A measurement model of ...[more]

PMID: 33150085

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, 350 million under-5s do not have adequate childcare. This may damage their health and development and undermine societal and economic development. Rapid urbanization is changing patterns of work, social structures, and gender norms. Parents, mainly mothers, work long hours for insecure daily wages. To respond to increasing demand, childcare centers have sprung up in informal settlements. However, there is currently little or no support to ensure they provide safe, nurturing care accessible to low-income families. Here, we present the process of co-designing an intervention, delivered by local government community health teams to improve the quality of childcare centers and ultimately the health and development of under-5 children in informal settlements in Kenya.MethodsThis mixed methods study started with a rapid mapping of the location and basic characteristics of all childcare centers in two informal settlements in Nairobi. Qualitative interviews were conducted with parents and grandparents (n = 44), childcare providers, and community health teams (n = 44). A series of 7 co-design workshops with representatives from government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community health teams, and childcare providers were held to design the intervention. Questionnaires to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of community health volunteers (n = 22) and childcare center providers (n = 66) were conducted.ResultsIn total, 129 childcare centers were identified -55 in Korogocho and 77 in Viwandani. School-based providers dominated in Korogocho (73%) while home-based centers were prevalent in Viwandani (53%). All centers reported minimal support from any organization (19% supported) and this was particularly low among home-based (9%) and center-based (14%) providers. Home-based center providers were the least likely to be trained in early childhood development (20%), hence the co-designed intervention focused on supporting these centers. All co-design stakeholders agreed that with further training, community health volunteers were well placed to support these informal centers. Findings showed that given the context of informal settlements, support for strengthening management within the centers in addition to the core domains of WHO's Nurturing Care Framework was required as a key component of the intervention.ConclusionImplementing a co-design process embedded within existing community health systems and drawing on the lived experiences of childcare providers and parents in informal settlements facilitated the development of an intervention with the potential for scalability and sustainability. Such interventions are urgently needed as the number of home-based and small center-based informal childcare centers is growing rapidly to meet the demand; yet, they receive little support to improve quality and are largely unregulated. Childcare providers, and government and community health teams were able to co-design an intervention delivered within current public community health structures to support centers in improving nurturing care. Further research on the effectiveness and sustainability of support to private and informal childcare centers in the context of low-income urban neighborhoods is needed.

Project description:IntroductionMeasuring the performance of a primary care system is one of the very first steps to find out whether there is room for improvement. To obtain an objective and comprehensive view, this measurement should come from both the supply and demand sides of the system. Patients' experiences of primary care have been studied around the world, but much less energy has been invested in researching providers' perspectives. This research aims to explore how primary care physicians working at commune health centers in Vietnam evaluate their performance and their opinions on how to improve the quality of primary care services.Materials and methodsFirst, a quantitative study was conducted using the validated Vietnamese PCAT questionnaire-provider expanded version (VN PCAT PE) targeting all primary care physicians (PCPs) working at commune health centers in a province of Central Vietnam. Next, a qualitative study was carried out, consisting of in-depth interviews with PCPs, to better understand the results of the quantitative survey and gain insight on barriers of primary care services and how to overcome them.ResultsIn the quantitative portion of our study, 150 PCPs rated the quality of ongoing care and first contact in CHCs as the best (3.09 and 3.11 out of 4, respectively), and coordination as the worst performing core domain (2.53). Twenty-two PCPs also participated in our qualitative research. In regards to challenges that primary care physicians face during their daily practice, three central themes emerged: 1) patient factors such as client attitude and knowledge, 2) provider factors such as the burden of administrative work and lack of training opportunities, and 3) contextual factors such as low income and lack of resources including medicines and diagnostics. Participants recommended more health promotion campaigns in the media, increasing the number of services available at CHCs (such as being able to take blood samples), reducing the workload related to administration for CHC leaders, greater government subsidies, and providing more training courses for PCPs.ConclusionsFindings from this study offer a valuable view from the supply-side of the primary care system, specifically those who directly deliver primary care services. Along with the earlier study on consumers' evaluation of the Vietnamese primary care system, and literature from other low and middle-income countries, these findings offer emerging evidence for policymakers to improve the quality of primary care in Vietnam.

Project description:BackgroundDifferentiated service delivery (DSD) offers benefits to people living with HIV (improved access, peer support), and the health system (clinic decongestion, efficient service delivery). ART clubs, 15-30 clients who usually meet within the community, are one of the most common DSD options. However, evidence about the quality of care (QoC) delivered in ART clubs is still limited.Materials and methodsWe conducted a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods study as part of the Test & Treat project in northwest Tanzania. We surveyed QoC among stable clients and health care workers (HCW) comparing between clinics and clubs. Using a Donabedian framework we structured the analysis into three levels of assessment: structure (staff, equipment, supplies, venue), processes (time-spent, screenings, information, HCW-attitude), and outcomes (viral load, CD4 count, retention, self-worth).ResultsWe surveyed 629 clients (40% in club) and conducted eight focus group discussions, while 24 HCW (25% in club) were surveyed and 22 individual interviews were conducted. Quantitative results revealed that in terms of structure, clubs fared better than clinics except for perceived adequacy of service delivery venue (94.4% vs 50.0%, p = 0.013). For processes, time spent receiving care was significantly more in clinics than clubs (119.9 vs 49.9 minutes). Regarding outcomes, retention was higher in the clubs (97.6% vs 100%), while the proportion of clients with recent viral load <50 copies/ml was higher in clinics (100% vs 94.4%). Qualitative results indicated that quality care was perceived similarly among clients in clinics and clubs but for different reasons. Clinics were generally perceived as places with expertise and clubs as efficient places with peer support and empathy. In describing QoC, HCW emphasized structure-related attributes while clients focused on processes. Outcomes-related themes such as improved client health status, self-worth, and confidentiality were similarly perceived across clients and HCW.ConclusionWe found better structure and process of care in clubs than clinics with comparable outcomes. While QoC was perceived similarly in clinics and clubs, its meaning was understood differently between clients. DSD catered to the individual needs of clients, either technical care in the clinic or proximate and social care in the club. Our findings highlight that both clinic and DSD care are required as many elements of QoC were individually perceived.

Project description:BackgroundSafe, high-quality surgical care in many African countries is a critical need. Challenges include availability of surgical providers, improving quality of care, and building workforce capacity. Despite growing evidence that mentoring is effective in African healthcare settings, less is known about its role in surgery. We examined a multimodal approach to mentorship as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) to improve surgical quality. Our goal was to distill lessons for policy makers, intervention designers, and practitioners on key elements of a successful surgical mentorship program.MethodsWe used a convergent, mixed-methods design to examine the experiences of mentees, mentors, and facility leaders with mentorship at 10 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. A multidisciplinary team of mentors worked with surgical providers over 17 months using in-person mentorship, telementoring, and WhatsApp. We conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to capture data in four categories: (1) satisfaction with mentorship; (2) perceived impact; (3) elements of a successful mentoring program; and (4) challenges to implementing mentorship. We analyzed quantitative data using frequency analysis and qualitative data using the constant comparison method. Recurrent and unifying concepts were identified through merging the qualitative and quantitative data.ResultsOverall, 96% of mentees experienced the intervention as positive, 88% were satisfied, and 100% supported continuing the intervention in the future. Mentees, mentors, and facility leaders perceived improvements in surgical practice, the surgical ecosystem, and in reducing postsurgical infections. Several themes related to the intervention's success emerged: (1) the intervention's design, including its multimodality, side-by-side mentorship, and standardization of practices; (2) the mentee-mentor relationship, including a friendly, safe, non-hierarchical, team relationship, as well as mentors' understanding of the local context; and (3) mentorship characteristics, including non-judgmental feedback, experience, and accessibility. Challenges included resistance to change, shortage of providers, mentorship dose, and logistics.ConclusionsOur study suggests a multimodal mentorship approach is promising in building the capacity of surgical providers. By distilling the experiences of the mentees, mentors, and facility leaders, our lessons provide a foundation for future efforts to establish effective surgical mentorship programs that build provider capacity and ultimately improve surgical quality.

Project description:BackgroundThe Protocol-guided Rapid Evaluation of Veterans Experiencing New Transient Neurologic Symptoms (PREVENT) program was a complex quality improvement (QI) intervention targeting transient ischemic attack (TIA) evidence-based care. The aim of this study was to evaluate program acceptability among the QI teams and factors associated with degrees of acceptability.MethodsQI teams from six Veterans Administration facilities participated in active implementation for a one-year period. We employed a mixed methods study to evaluate program acceptability. Multiple data sources were collected over implementation phases and triangulated for this evaluation. First, we conducted 30 onsite, semi-structured interviews during active implementation with 35 participants at 6 months; 27 interviews with 28 participants at 12 months; and 19 participants during program sustainment. Second, we conducted debriefing meetings after onsite visits and monthly virtual collaborative calls. All interviews and debriefings were audiotaped, transcribed, and de-identified. De-identified files were qualitatively coded and analyzed for common themes and acceptability patterns. We conducted mixed-methods matrix analyses comparing acceptability by satisfaction ratings and by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).ResultsOverall, the QI teams reported the PREVENT program was acceptable. The clinical champions reported high acceptability of the PREVENT program. At pre-implementation phase, reviewing quality data, team brainstorming solutions and development of action plans were rated as most useful during the team kickoff meetings. Program acceptability perceptions varied over time across active implementation and after teams accomplished actions plans and moved into sustainment. We observed team acceptability growth over a year of active implementation in concert with the QI team's self-efficacy to improve quality of care. Guided by the TFA, the QI teams' acceptability was represented by the respective seven components of the multifaceted acceptability construct.ConclusionsProgram acceptability varied by time, by champion role on QI team, by team self-efficacy, and by perceived effectiveness to improve quality of care aligned with the TFA. A complex quality improvement program that fostered flexibility in local adaptation and supported users with access to data, resources, and implementation strategies was deemed acceptable and appropriate by front-line clinicians implementing practice changes in a large, national healthcare organization.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov : NCT02769338 .

Project description:BackgroundThe app-based salt reduction intervention program in school children and their families (AppSalt) is a multicomponent mobile health (mHealth) intervention program, which involves multiple stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, school heads, and local health and education authorities. The complexity of the AppSalt program highlights the need for process evaluation to investigate how the implementation will be achieved at different sites.ObjectiveThis paper presents a process evaluation protocol of the AppSalt program, which aims to monitor the implementation of the program, explain its causal mechanisms, and provide evidence for scaling up the program nationwide.MethodsA mixed methods approach will be used to collect data relating to five process evaluation dimensions: fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, and context. Quantitative data, including app use logs, activity logs, and routine monitoring data, will be collected alongside the intervention process to evaluate the quantity and quality of intervention activities. The quantitative data will be summarized as medians, means, and proportions as appropriate. Qualitative data will be collected through semistructured interviews of purposely selected intervention participants and key stakeholders from local health and education authorities. The thematic analysis technique will be used for analyzing the qualitative data with the support of NVivo 12. The qualitative data will be triangulated with the quantitative data during the interpretation phase to explain the 5 process evaluation dimensions.ResultsThe intervention activities of the AppSalt program were initiated at 27 primary schools in three cities since October 2018. We have completed the 1-year intervention of this program. The quantitative data for this study, including app use log, activity logs, and the routine monitoring data, were collected and organized during the intervention process. After completing the intervention, we conducted semistructured interviews with 32 students, 32 parents, 9 teachers, 9 school heads, and 8 stakeholders from local health and education departments. Data analysis is currently underway.ConclusionsUsing mHealth technology for salt reduction among primary school students is an innovation in China. The findings of this study will help researchers understand the implementation of the AppSalt program and similar mHealth interventions in real-world settings. Furthermore, this process evaluation will be informative for other researchers and policy makers interested in replicating the AppSalt program and designing their salt reduction intervention.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/19430.

Dataset Information

What families really think about the quality of early intervention centers: a perspective from mixed methods.

Publications

What families really think about the quality of early intervention centers: a perspective from mixed methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets