Dataset Information

How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: Engaging stakeholders from varied organizational levels is essential to successful healthcare quality improvement. However, engagement has been hard to achieve and to measure across diverse stakeholders. Further, current implementation science models provide little clarity about what engagement means, despite its importance. The aim of this study was to understand how stakeholders of healthcare improvement initiatives defined engagement.Participants (n = 86) in this qualitative thematic study were purposively sampled for individual interviews. Participants included leaders, core members, frontline clinicians, support personnel, and other stakeholders of Strategic Clinical Networks in Alberta Health Services, a Canadian provincial health system with over 108,000 employees. We used an iterative thematic approach to analyze participants' responses to the question, "How do you define engagement?"Regardless of their organizational role, participants defined engagement through three interrelated themes. First, engagement was active participation from willing and committed stakeholders, with levels that ranged from information sharing to full decision-making. Second, engagement centered on a shared decision-making process about meaningful change for everyone "around the table," those who are most impacted. Third, engagement was two-way interactions that began early in the change process, where exchanges were respectful and all stakeholders felt heard and understood.This study highlights the commonalities of how stakeholders in a large healthcare system defined engagement-a shared understanding and terminology-to guide and improve stakeholder engagement. Overall, engagement was an active and committed decision-making about a meaningful problem through respectful interactions and dialog where everyone's voice is considered. Our results may be used in conjunction with current implementation models to provide clarity about what engagement means and how to engage various stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Norris JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5540524 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Various population segmentation tools have been developed to inform the design of interventions that improve population health. However, there has been little consensus on the core indicators and purposes of population segmentation. The existing frameworks were further limited by their applicability in different practice settings involving stakeholders at all levels. The aim of this study was to generate a comprehensive set of indicators and purposes of population segmentation based on the experience and perspectives of key stakeholders involved in population health. METHODS:We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews using purposive sampling with key stakeholders (e.g. government officials, healthcare professionals, social service providers, researchers) involved in population health at three distinct levels (micro, meso, macro) in Singapore. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was undertaken using NVivo 12. RESULTS:A total of 25 interviews were conducted. Eight core indicators (demographic characteristics, economic characteristics, behavioural characteristics, disease state, functional status, organisation of care, psychosocial factors and service needs of patients) and 21 sub-indicators were identified. Age and financial status were commonly stated as important indicators that could potentially be used for population segmentation across three levels of participants. Six intended purposes for population segmentation included improving health outcomes, planning for resource allocation, optimising healthcare utilisation, enhancing psychosocial and behavioural outcomes, strengthening preventive efforts and driving policy changes. There was consensus that planning for resource allocation and improving health outcomes were considered two of the most important purposes for population segmentation. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings shed light on the need for a more person-centric population segmentation framework that incorporates upstream and holistic indicators to be able to measure population health outcomes and to plan for appropriate resource allocation. Core elements of the framework may apply to other healthcare settings and systems responsible for improving population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was approved by the SingHealth Institutional Review Board (CIRB Reference number: 2017/2597).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The literature suggests that although adult hospitals are establishing population health programs around the country, there is considerable definitional ambiguity regarding whether interventions are aimed at the social determinants of health or the management of existing patient populations. U.S. children's hospitals also undertake population health programs, but less is known about how they define population health. The purpose of this study is to understand how U.S. children's hospitals define population health, and how institutions are adjusting to new preventive health care models. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders at ten hospitals with the highest amount of staff time dedicated to population health activities as reported in the 2016 Children's Hospital Association's population health survey. Using a semi-structured interview guide, we interviewed representatives from each hospital. Verbatim interview notes were coded and analyzed using the data analysis software Dedoose. Data analysis followed a modified constructivist grounded theory approach. RESULTS:Our results suggest that even population health innovators employ a variety of approaches that span both population health management and public health. We present further evidence that U.S. children's hospitals are actively debating the definition and focus of population health. CONCLUSIONS:Definitional debates are ongoing even within children's hospitals that are dedicating significant resources to population health. Increased clarity on the conceptual boundaries between population health and population health management could help preserve the theoretical differences between the two concepts, especially insofar as they mark two quite different long-term visions for health care. Without agreement about the meaning of population health within and among institutions, hospitals will not be able to know whether projects aimed at addressing the social determinants of health are likely to improve the health of populations.

Project description:BackgroundFront-of-package labelling regulations proposed by Health Canada in their Healthy Eating Strategy (2016) were finally passed in 2022, but remain unimplemented. This study analyzed interactions that occurred between stakeholders and government related to this policy proposal to identify key themes and policy implications.MethodsA qualitative framework analysis was conducted on publicly available documents for stakeholder correspondences related to front-of-package that occurred between 2016 and 2019 in Health Canada's Meetings and Correspondence on Healthy Eating database. Five sequential steps were applied: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation. A complex systems (i.e., a dynamic system with multiple interconnecting components) lens was incorporated in the final step to deepen the analysis.ResultsHundred and seventy-three documents were included, the majority from industry stakeholders (n = 108, 62.4%). Three overarching themes were identified: industry trying to control the agenda and resist regulation; questioning the evidence supporting the policy and its impact on the agri-food industry; and dismissing the need and effectiveness of the policy. Incorporating a complex system lens found industry and non-industry stakeholders held markedly different perspectives on how cohesive the system defined by the front-of-package labelling policy was, and the policy impact on its stability. Economic and opportunity costs were the main trade-offs, and symbol misinterpretation considered an unintended consequence by industry. Finally, some stakeholders argued for wider policy scope incorporating more products, while others requested a narrower approach through exemptions.ConclusionInteractions with industry stakeholders on health food policy proposals require careful consideration, given it may suit their interests to generate delays and policy discordance. Explicitly setting out the principles of engagement and actively encouraging non-industry stakeholder representation provides a more balanced approach to policy consultation and development.

Project description:ObjectivesThe National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring.DesignSemistructured qualitative interview study.Participants25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity.FindingsParticipants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors.ConclusionsParticipants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants.

Project description:There is a growing interest in aggregating more biomedical and patient data into large health data sets for research and public benefits. However, collecting and processing patient data raises new ethical issues regarding patient's rights, social justice and trust in public institutions. The aim of this empirical study is to gain an in-depth understanding of the awareness of possible ethical risks and corresponding obligations among those who are involved in projects using patient data, i.e. healthcare professionals, regulators and policy makers.We used a qualitative design to examine Swiss healthcare stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of ethical challenges with regard to patient data in real-life settings where clinical registries are sponsored, created and/or used. A semi-structured interview was carried out with 22 participants (11 physicians, 7 policy-makers, 4 ethical committee members) between July 2014 and January 2015. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using a thematic method derived from Grounded Theory.All interviewees were concerned as a matter of priority with the needs of legal and operating norms for the collection and use of data, whereas less interest was shown in issues regarding patient agency, the need for reciprocity, and shared governance in the management and use of clinical registries' patient data. This observed asymmetry highlights a possible tension between public and research interests on the one hand, and the recognition of patients' rights and citizens' involvement on the other.The advocation of further health-related data sharing on the grounds of research and public interest, without due regard for the perspective of patients and donors, could run the risk of fostering distrust towards healthcare data collections. Ultimately, this could diminish the expected social benefits. However, rather than setting patient rights against public interest, new ethical approaches could strengthen both concurrently. On a normative level, this study thus provides material from which to develop further ethical reflection towards a more cooperative approach involving patients and citizens in the governance of their health-related big data.

Dataset Information

How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets