How does context influence collaborative decision-making for health services planning, delivery and evaluation?

BMC Health Services Research

Steven Gallinger²  Antonio Finelli²  Nancy N Baxter³  Melissa C Brouwers¹  Fiona Webster⁴  Anna R Gagliardi² 

[1]McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

[2]University Health Network, Toronto, Canada

[3]St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada

[4]University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Qualitative methods;    Collaboration;    Health services research;    Integrated knowledge translation;   

Others  :  1091621
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0545-x

 received in 2014-02-13, accepted in 2014-10-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Collaboration among researchers (clinician, non-clinician) and decision makers (managers, policy-makers, clinicians), referred to as integrated knowledge translation (IKT), enhances the relevance and use of research, leading to improved decision-making, policies, practice, and health care outcomes. However IKT is not widely practiced due to numerous challenges. This research explored how context influenced IKT as a means of identifying how IKT could be strengthened.

Methods

This research investigated IKT in three health services programs for colon cancer screening, prostate cancer diagnosis, and the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Qualitative methods were used to explore contextual factors that influenced how IKT occurred, and its impact. Data were collected between September 1, 2012 and May 15, 2013 from relevant documents, observation of meetings, and interviews with researchers and decision-makers, analyzed using qualitative methods, and integrated.

Results

Data were analyzed from 39 documents, observation of 6 meetings, and 36 interviews. IKT included interaction at meetings, joint undertaking of research, and development of guidelines. IKT was most prevalent in one program with leadership, clear goals, dedicated funding and other infrastructural resources, and an embedded researcher responsible for, and actively engaged in IKT. This program achieved a variety of social, research and health service outcomes despite mixed individual views about the value of IKT and the absence of a programmatic culture of IKT. Participants noted numerous challenges including lack of time and incentives, and recommendations to support IKT. A conceptual framework of factors that influence IKT and associated outcomes was generated, and can be used by others to plan or evaluate IKT.

Conclusions

The findings can be applied by researchers, clinicians, managers or policy-makers to plan or improve collaborative decision-making for health services planning, delivery, evaluation or quality improvement. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings are widespread, and further understand how IKT can be optimized.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Gagliardi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A: Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002, 7:239-244.
• [2]Ouimet M, Landry R, Amara N, Belkhodja O: What factors induce health care decision-makers to use clinical guidelines? Evidence from provincial health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals in Canada. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62:964-976.
• [3]Lomas J: Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff 2000, 19:236-240.
• [4]Kothari A, Wathen CN: A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health Policy 2013, 109(2):187-191.
• [5]Bowen SJ, Graham ID: From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: Promoting research relevance and utilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013, 94(1 Suppl):S3-S8.
• [6]Denis JL, Hebert Y, Langley A, Lozeau D, Trottier LH: Explaining diffusion patterns for complex health care innovations. Health Care Manage Rev 2002, 27(3):60-73.
• [7]Dooley KL: A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 1997, 1(1):69-97.
• [8]Oborn E, Barrett M, Prince K, Racko G: Balancing exploration and exploitation in transferring research into practice: a comparison of five knowledge translation entity archetypes. Implement Sci 2013, 8:104. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Wilkinson H, Gallagher M, Smith M: A collaborative approach to defining the usefulness of impact: lessons from a knowledge exchange project involving academics and social work practitioners. Evid Policy 2012, 8(3):311-327.
• [10]Allender S, Nichols M, Foulkes C, Reynolds R, Waters E, King L, Gill T, Armstrong R, Swinburn B: The development of a network for community-based obesity prevention: the CO-OPS Collaboration. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:132. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Tee S, Bockle E: Closing the gap – A partnership approach to community care education for long term conditions. Nurse Edu Today 2012, 32:822-828.
• [12]King G, Currie M, Smith L, Servais M, McDougall J: A framework of operating models for interdisciplinary research programs in clinical service organizations. Eval Program Plan 2008, 31:160-173.
• [13]Hall JG, Buchan A, Cribb A, Drummond J, Gyles C, Hicks TP, McWilliam C, Paterson B, Ratner PA, Skarakis-Doyle E, Solomon P: A meeting of the minds: interdisciplinary research in the health sciences in Canada. CMAJ 2006, 175(7):763-771.
• [14]Dayan PS, Osmond M, Kuppermann N, Lang E, Klassen T, Johnson D, Strauss S, Hess E, Schneider S, Afilalo M, Pusic M: Development of the capacity necessary to perform and promote knowledge translation research in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2004, 14(11):978-983.
• [15]Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Legare F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM: Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q 2008, 86(1):125-155.
• [16]Ettelt S, Mays N: Health service research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Serv Res Policy 2011, 16(suppl 2):48-60.
• [17]Hofmeyer A, Scott C, Lagendyk L: Researcher-decision-maker partnerships in health services research: Practical challenges, guiding principles. Health Serv Res 2012, 12:280. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S: Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med 2012, 74(3):297-304.
• [19]Ilott I, Gerrish K, Pownall S, Eltringham S, Booth A: Exploring scale-up, spread and sustainability: an instrumental case study tracing an innovation to enhance dysphagia care. Implement Sci 2013, 8:128. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]McDonald KM: Considering context in quality improvement interventions and implementation: concepts, frameworks and application. Acad Pediat 2013, 13(6S):S45-S53.
• [21]Flottorp SA, Oxman AD, Krause J, Musila NR, Wensing M, Godycki-Cwirko M, Baker R, Eccles MP: A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci 2013, 8:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A, Estabrooks C: Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care 2002, 11:174-180.
• [23]Cummings GG, Estabrooks CA, Midodzi WK, Wallin L, Hayduk L: Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization. Nurs Res 2007, 56(4S):S24-S39.
• [24]Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, Hawkes CA, Crichton N, Allen C, Bullock I, Strunin L: The role of evidence, context and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci 2013, 8:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Auerbach CF, Silverstein LB: Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York University Press, New York; 2003.
• [26]Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ 2011, 322(7294):1115-1117.
• [27]Clark JP: How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2nd edition. Edited by Godlee F, Jefferson T. BMJ Books, London; 2003.
• [28]Elo S, Kyngas H: The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008, 62(1):107-115.
• [29]Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(9):1277-1288.
• [30]Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park, CA; 1990.
• [31]Strauss AL: Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2003.
• [32]Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 2000, 320:114-116.
• [33]Robinson OC: Relational analysis: An add-on technique for aiding data integration in qualitative research. Qual Res Psychol 2011, 8(2):197-209.
• [34]Macionis J, Gerber L: Sociology, Seventh Canadian Edition. Pearson Education Canada, Don Mills; 2010.
• [35]Squires JE, Estabrooks CA, Scott SD, Cummings GG, Hayduk L, Kang SH, Stevens B: The influence of organizational context on the use of research by nurses in Canadian pediatric hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 2013, 13:351. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Gagliardi AR, Dobrow MJ, Wright FC: How can we improve cancer care? A review of interprofessional collaboration models and their use in clinical management. Surg Oncol 2011, 20(3):146-154.
• [37]Sharp ND, Pineros SL, Hsu C, Starks H, Sales AE: A qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of pilot interventions in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Northwest Network. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004, 1(2):129-139.
• [38]Cammer A, Morgan D, Stewart N, McGilton K, Rycroft-Malone J, Dopson S, Estabrooks C: The hidden complexity of long-term care: how context mediates knowledge translation and use of best practices.Gerontologist 2013, doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt068.
• [39]Kothari A, Sibbald S, Wathen CN: PreVAiL. Partnership Evaluation Report: Phase1. Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan Research Network. University of Western Ontario, London ON; 2013.
• [40]Kothari A, MacLean L, Edwards N, Hobbs A: Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Manage Res Pract 2011, 9:203-214.