Using Stakeholder Involvement, Expert Knowledge and Naturalistic Implementation to Co-Design a Complex Intervention to Support Children's Inclusion and Participation in Schools: The CIRCLE Framework.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Maciver D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8001448 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The use of analogy is an important component of human cognition. The type of analogy we produce and communicate depends heavily on a number of factors, such as the setting, the level of domain expertise present, and the speaker's goal or intent. In this observational study, we recorded economics experts during scientific discussion and examined the categorical distance and structural depth of the analogies they produced. We also sought to characterize the purpose of the analogies that were generated. Our results supported previous conclusions about the infrequency of superficial similarity in subject-generated analogs, but also showed that distance and depth characteristics were more evenly balanced than in previous observational studies. This finding was likely due to the nature of the goals of the participants, as well as the broader nature of their expertise. An analysis of analogical purpose indicated that the generation of concrete source examples of more general target concepts was most prevalent. We also noted frequent instances of analogies intended to form visual images of source concepts. Other common purposes for analogies were the addition of colorful speech, inclusion (i.e., subsumption) of a target into a source concept, or differentiation between source and target concepts. We found no association between depth and either of the other two characteristics, but our findings suggest a relationship between purpose and distance; i.e., that visual imagery typically entailed an outside-domain source whereas exemplification was most frequently accomplished using within-domain analogies. Overall, we observed a rich and diverse set of spontaneously produced analogical comparisons. The high degree of expertise within the observed group along with the richly comparative nature of the economics discipline likely contributed to this analogical abundance.
| S-EPMC4244599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multi-stakeholder platforms have become mainstream in projects, programmes and policy interventions aiming to improve innovation and livelihoods systems, i.e. research for development interventions in low- and middle-income contexts. However, the evidence for multi-stakeholder platforms' contribution to the performance of research for development interventions and their added value is not compelling. This paper focuses on stakeholder participation as one of the channels for multi-stakeholder platforms' contribution to the performance of research for development interventions, i.e. stakeholder participation. It uses a quantitative approach and utilizes descriptive statistics and ARIMA models. It shows that, in three Ugandan multi-stakeholder platform cases studied, participation increased both in nominal and in unique terms. Moreover, participation was rather cyclical and fluctuated during the implementation of the research for development interventions. The study also shows that, in addition to locational and intervention factors such as type of the area along a rural-urban gradient targeted by the intervention and human resources provided for multi-stakeholder platform implementation, temporal elements such as phases of research for development intervention objectives and the innovation development process play significant roles in influencing participation. The study concludes that contribution of multi-stakeholder platforms to the performance of research for development projects, programs, policies and other initiatives is constrained by locational and temporal context and conditional on the participation requirements of the objectives pursued by research for development intervention.
| S-EPMC6855456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Accountable decision-makers are required to legitimize their priority setting decisions in health to members of society. In this perspective we stress the point that fair, legitimate processes should reflect efforts of authorities to treat all stakeholders as moral equals in terms of providing all people with well-justified, reasonable reasons to endorse the decisions. We argue there is a special moral concern for being accountable to those who are potentially adversely affected by decisions. Health authorities need to operationalize this requirement into real world action. In this perspective, we operationalize five key steps in doing so, in terms of (i) proactively identifying potentially adversely affected stakeholders; (ii) comprehensively including them in the decision-making process; (iii) ensuring meaningful participation; (iv) communication of recommendations or decisions; and (v) the organization of evaluation and appeal mechanisms. Health authorities are advised to use a checklist in the form of 29 reflective questions, aligned with these five key steps, to assist them in the practical organization of legitimate priority setting in healthcare.
| S-EPMC6326635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRacially minoritised groups across the globe continue to experience differential outcomes in both health and education. Medical schools can play an instrumental role in addressing both these disparities, by creating inclusive student communities and ensuring that tomorrow's doctors can care for our increasingly diverse populations.ObjectivesThis collaborative, qualitative study led by three United Kingdom (UK) institutions aimed to explore the perspectives of Heads of Primary Care Teaching (HOTs) on cultural diversity and inclusion across UK medical schools.MethodsIn December 2020, five focus groups were conducted remotely with 23 HOTs, or a nominated deputy. We explored participants' opinions regarding opportunities and barriers to cultural diversity and inclusion in medical education, ways to overcome these challenges and shared examples of best practice. Data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed by three researchers.ResultsInvestigators identified six themes from the data: lack of faculty diversity, tokenistic faculty training, institutional mindset, diversifying the formal and hidden curricula, intersectionality and student voice.ConclusionMedical schools worldwide face similar challenges, uncertainties and opportunities when integrating diversity and inclusion throughout the learning environment. Although the importance of the topic is increasingly acknowledged, current efforts are viewed as being passive and tokenistic, hindered by challenges at multiple levels. Partnership with students and collaboration within and between institutions nationally and internationally will enable us to move forwards with both local and global positive, sustainable change.
| S-EPMC9313838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nanotechnology can be described as an emerging technology and, as has been the case with other emerging technologies such as genetic modification, different socio-psychological factors will potentially influence societal responses to its development and application. These factors will play an important role in how nanotechnology is developed and commercialised. This article aims to identify expert opinion on factors influencing societal response to applications of nanotechnology. Structured interviews with experts on nanotechnology from North West Europe were conducted using repertory grid methodology in conjunction with generalized Procrustes analysis to examine the psychological constructs underlying societal uptake of 15 key applications of nanotechnology drawn from different areas (e.g. medicine, agriculture and environment, chemical, food, military, sports, and cosmetics). Based on expert judgement, the main factors influencing societal response to different applications of nanotechnology will be the extent to which applications are perceived to be beneficial, useful, and necessary, and how 'real' and physically close to the end-user these applications are perceived to be by the public. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
| S-EPMC3397131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTeleophthalmology has become the subject of heightened interest and scrutiny in the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic. A streamlined implementation framework becomes increasingly important as demand grows. This study identified obstacles to teleophthalmology implementation through summative content analysis of key stakeholders' perceptions.DesignSummative content analysis of transcribed interviews with key stakeholders (including patients, technicians, ophthalmic readers, staff, nurses, and administrators at two teleophthalmology clinic sites).MethodsKeyword Were counted and compared to examine underlying meaning. Two analysts coded text independently using MAXQDA for summative qualitative content analysis to derive themes and hierarchical relationships as a basis for future refinement of TECS implementation. xMind ZEN was used to map conceptual relationships and overarching themes that emerged to identify perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation RESULTS: Analysis revealed two themes common to perceptions: (1) benefits of care, and (2) ease of implementation. Perceived benefits included efficiency, accessibility, and earlier intervention in disease course. The quality and quantity of training was heavily weighted in its influence on stakeholders' commitment to and confidence in the program, as were transparent organizational structure, clear bidirectional communication, and the availability of support staff.ConclusionUsing a determinant framework of implementation science, this report highlighted potential hindrances to teleophthalmology implementation and offered solutions in order to increase access to screening, improve the quality of care provided, and facilitate sustainability of the innovation.
| S-EPMC9403222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Children often encounter events that bear on their moral and other evaluations, such as physical aggression and material disorder. Children's perceptions and evaluations are decisive for how they respond to and learn from these everyday events. Using a new method for investigating the development of social perceptions and evaluations, researchers interviewed 3- to 6-year-olds about naturalistic video recordings of harm, disorder, and joint play events. Children distinguished between the situations in the perceived intent of the protagonists, evaluations, justifications, and what they thought the protagonist should do after. Age differences suggested that perceiving and evaluating simple everyday situations was challenging for younger children. This research highlights the importance of studying children's everyday social perceptions and evaluations and validates a new paradigm for doing so. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC6698909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS:We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS:We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ??4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .
| S-EPMC6260873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature with respect to stakeholder views of selection methods for medical school admissions.An electronic search of nine databases was conducted between January 2000-July 2014. Two reviewers independently assessed all titles (n = 1017) and retained abstracts (n = 233) for relevance. Methodological quality of quantitative papers was assessed using the MERSQI instrument. The overall quality of evidence in this field was low. Evidence was synthesised in a narrative review.Applicants support interviews, and multiple mini interviews (MMIs). There is emerging evidence that situational judgement tests (SJTs) and selection centres (SCs) are also well regarded, but aptitude tests less so. Selectors endorse the use of interviews in general and in particular MMIs judging them to be fair, relevant and appropriate, with emerging evidence of similarly positive reactions to SCs. Aptitude tests and academic records were valued in decisions of whom to call to interview. Medical students prefer interviews based selection to cognitive aptitude tests. They are unconvinced about the transparency and veracity of written applications. Perceptions of organisational justice, which describe views of fairness in organisational processes, appear to be highly influential on stakeholders' views of the acceptability of selection methods. In particular procedural justice (perceived fairness of selection tools in terms of job relevance and characteristics of the test) and distributive justice (perceived fairness of selection outcomes in terms of equal opportunity and equity), appear to be important considerations when deciding on acceptability of selection methods. There were significant gaps with respect to both key stakeholder groups and the range of selection tools assessed.Notwithstanding the observed limitations in the quality of research in this field, there appears to be broad concordance of views on the various selection methods, across the diverse stakeholders groups. This review highlights the need for better standards, more appropriate methodologies and for broadening the scope of stakeholder research.
| S-EPMC6002997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The health and education departments of government share a responsibility for promoting the health of children through policies in the school setting. These policies can be enhanced through the involvement of such stakeholders as school personnel, students, parents or caregivers, health professionals, the non-profit sector and industry. Although there is little evidence-based literature on the roles of stakeholders in school policy development and implementation, stakeholder involvement appears to be critical throughout the policy process. This article discusses stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation of school policies that promote and support healthy eating and physical activity. Canadian examples illustrate stakeholder engagement in this context.Electronic Supplementary MaterialSupplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/BF03405621 and is accessible for authorized users.
| S-EPMC6973626 | biostudies-literature