Stakeholders’ contributions to tailored implementation programs: an observational study of group interview methods

Implementation Science

Michel Wensing²  Joachim Szecsenyi¹  Anna Kowalczyk⁷  Cornelia Jäger¹  Maciek Godycki-Cwirko³  Signe Flottorp⁵  Richard Baker⁴  Eivind Aakhus⁶  Jan van Lieshout²  Elke Huntink² 

[1] Heidelberg University Hospital, Voßstraße 2, Heidelberg, D-69115, Germany;Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, the Netherlands;Medical University of Lodz, ul. Kopcinskiego 20, Lodz, 90-153, Poland;University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK;University of Oslo, Postboks 1089 Blindern, Oslo, 0317, Norway;Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, St. Olavs plass N-0130, Oslo, Norway;Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, ul. Kopcinskiego 20, Lodz, 90-153, Poland

关键词: Evidence-based practice;    Implementation science;    Chronic illness care;    Methodology/methods;    Group interview methods;   

Others  :  1139477
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0185-x

 received in 2014-09-10, accepted in 2014-11-27,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Tailored strategies to implement evidence-based practice can be generated in several ways. In this study, we explored the usefulness of group interviews for generating these strategies, focused on improving healthcare for patients with chronic diseases.

Methods

Participants included at least four categories of stakeholders (researchers, quality officers, health professionals, and external stakeholders) in five countries. Interviews comprised brainstorming followed by a structured interview and focused on different chronic conditions in each country. We compared the numbers and types of strategies between stakeholder categories and between interview phases. We also determined which strategies were actually used in tailored intervention programs.

Results

In total, 127 individuals participated in 25 group interviews across five countries. Brainstorming generated 8 to 120 strategies per group; structured interviews added 0 to 55 strategies. Healthcare professionals and researchers provided the largest numbers of strategies. The type of strategies for improving healthcare practice did not differ systematically between stakeholder groups in four of the five countries. In three out of five countries, all components of the chosen intervention programs were mentioned by the group of researchers.

Conclusions

Group interviews with different stakeholder categories produced many strategies for tailored implementation of evidence-based practice, of which the content was largely similar across stakeholder categories.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Huntink et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R: Developing and selecting interventions for translating knowledge into action. CMAJ 2010, 182:85-88.
• [2]Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010., 3
• [3]Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M, Grol R: Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13:161-168.
• [4]Paulus PB, Brown VR: Enhancing Ideational Creativity in Groups: Lessons from Research on Brainstorming. Oxford University Press, Texas; 2003.
• [5]Litchfield RC: Brainstorming rules as assigned goals: does brainstorming really improve idea quantity? Motiv Emot 2009, 33:25-31.
• [6]Wensing M, Huntink E, van Lieshout J, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, Jäger C, Steinhäuser J, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, Eccles M, Baker R: Tailored implementation of evidence-based practice for patients with chronic diseases. Plos One 2014, 9:7.
• [7]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
• [8]Wensing M, Oxman A, Baker R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Flottorp S, Szecsenyi J, Grimshaw J, Eccles M: Tailored implementation for chronic diseases (TICD): a project protocol. Implement Sci 2011, 6:103. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Jäger C, Freund T, Steinhäuser J, Joos S, Wensing M, Szecsenyi J: A tailored implementation intervention to implement recommendations addressing polypharmacy in multimorbid patients: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013, 14:420. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Huntink E, Heijmans N, Wensing M, Van Lieshout J: Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to improve cardiovascular risk management in primary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2013, 14:433. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Aakhus E, Granlund I, Odgaard-Jensen J, Wensing M, Oxman AD, Flottorp SA: Tailored interventions to implement recommendations for elderly patients with depression in primary care: a study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials 2014, 15:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Godycki- Cwirko M, Zakowska I, Kosiek K, Wensing M, Krawczyk J, Kowalczyk A: Evaluation of an tailored implementation strategy to improve the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: a study protocol of a cluster randomized trial. Trials 2014, 15:109. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Krause J, Agarwal S, Bodicoat DH, Ring A, Shepherd D, Rogers S, Wensing M, Baker R: Evaluation of a tailored intervention to improve management of overweight and obesity in primary care: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014, 15:82. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Krause J, van Lieshout J, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhuis E, Flotorp S, Jäger C, Steinhäuser J, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, Agarwal S, Baker R: Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: a comparison of different methods. Implement Sci 2014, 9:102. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Osborn AF: Applied Imagination. Scribner's, Oxford; 1957.
• [16]Nagelkerk J, Reick K, Meengs L: Perceived barriers and effective strategies to diabetes self-management. J Advan Nurs 2006, 54:151-158.
• [17]Kaasalainen S, Williams J, Hadjistavropoulos T, Thorpe L, Whiting S, Neville S, Tremeer J: Creating bridges between researchers and long- term care homes to promote quality of life for residents. Qual Health Res 2010, 20:1689-1709.
• [18]Helm S: One reputation or many?: Comparing stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate reputation. Corp Commun: Intern J 2007, 12:238-254.
• [19]Merrilees B, Miller D, Herington C: Multiple stakeholders and multiple city brand meanings. Eur J Marketing 2012, 46:1032-1047.
• [20]Lliffe S, De Lepeleire J, Hout H, Kenny G, Lewis A, Vernooij-Dassen M: The Diadem Group: Understanding obstacles to the recognition of and response to dementia in different European countries: a modified focus group approach using multinational, multi-disciplinary expert groups. Aging Mental Health 2010, 9:1-6.
• [21]Twohig PL, Putnam W: Group interviews in primary care research: advancing the state of the art or ritualized research. Fam Pract 2002, 19:278-284.
• [22]Fern A: The use of focus groups for idea generation: the effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. J Market Res 1982, 19:1-13.
• [23]Nijstad B, Stroebe W, Lodewijkx H: Persistance of brainstorming groups: how do people know when to stop? J Experim Social Psych 1999, 35:165-185.
• [24]Lucero A, Keränen J, Korhonen H: Collaborative use of mobile phones for brainstorming. Mobile HCI 2010, 10:7-10.
• [25]Carlsen B, Glenton C: What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Res Method 2011, 11:26. BioMed Central Full Text