scholarly journals Strategies for Involving Patients and the Public in Scaling-Up Initiatives in Health and Social Services: Protocol for a Two-Pong Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Belanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
Amédé Gogovor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Knowledge Synthesis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services

Abstract Background: The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy-makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS.Methods: Design: We will adapt our overall method from the RAND Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-component study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. Knowledge synthesis: We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: 1) Participants - any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; 2) Intervention - any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; 3) Comparator - no restriction; 4) Outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and 5) Setting - HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Sociological Abstract), hand searching relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension guidelines. Delphi study: We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities.Discussion: Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS.Registration: We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS. Methods We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants—any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention—any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator—no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting—HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. Discussion Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS. Systematic review registration We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: study protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Belanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
Amédé Gogovor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background: The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy-makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS.Methods: We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: 1) Participants – any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; 2) Intervention – any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; 3) Comparator – no restriction; 4) Outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and 5) Setting – HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand searching relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. Discussion: Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS.Registration: We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Expert consensus on a standardised definition and severity classification for adverse events associated with spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilisation: protocol for an international e-Delphi study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e050219
Author(s):  
Martha Funabashi ◽  
Katherine A Pohlman ◽  
Lindsay M Gorrell ◽  
Stacie A Salsbury ◽  
Andrea Bergna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Classification System ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Severity Classification

IntroductionSpinal and peripheral joint manipulation (SMT) and mobilisation (MOB) are widely used and recommended in the best practice guidelines for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Although adverse events (AEs) have been reported following these interventions, a clear definition and classification system for AEs remains unsettled. With many professionals using SMT and MOB, establishing consensus on a definition and classification system is needed to assist with the assimilation of AEs data across professions and to inform research priorities to optimise safety in clinical practice.Methods and analysisThis international multidisciplinary electronic Delphi study protocol is informed by a scoping review and in accordance with the ‘Guidance on Conduction and Reporting Delphi Studies’. With oversight from an expert steering committee, the study comprises three rounds using online questionnaires. Experts in manual therapy and patient safety meeting strict eligibility criteria from the following fields will be invited to participate: clinical, medical and legal practice, health records, regulatory bodies, researchers and patients. Round 1 will include open-ended questions on participants’ working definition and/or understanding of AEs following SMT and MOB and their severity classification. In round 2, participants will rate their level of agreement with statements generated from round 1 and our scoping review. In round 3, participants will rerate their agreement with statements achieving consensus in round 2. Statements reaching consensus must meet the a priori criteria, as determined by descriptive analysis. Inferential statistics will be used to evaluate agreement between participants and stability of responses between rounds. Statements achieving consensus in round 3 will provide an expert-derived definition and classification system for AEs following SMT and MOB.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Research Ethics Board and deemed exempt by Parker University’s Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through scientific, professional and educational reports, publications and presentations.

Creating Innovative Public Services by Fostering Conflicts

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Rossi ◽  
Pasi-Heikki Rannisto ◽  
Jari Stenvall
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
Public Administrators ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Public Sector Leadership ◽  
Service Perspective

This article presents a case study focused on the conflicting logics of multiple actors involved in planning, organizing and providing health and social services in an innovative way. The aim was to empirically approach the experiences of the actors coping with the complexity of the multiple, often contradictory logics, concluding with a theoretical approach on how the leadership could strengthen the development of innovative public services. Data consisted of documents, observations and interviews and was analyzed through a critical realism approach. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to increase the understanding of the leadership as a constraining and an enabling force when developing innovative public services in a networked environment. As a result, two conflicting institutional logics were found: the costs-based logic of the public administrators and politicians, and the service-based logic of the citizens and public service producers, and the needs to consider the service perspective, new hybrid practices and changing meanings given to cooperation in public sector leadership are covered.

scholarly journals Government Health and Social Services Spending Show Evidence of Single-Sector Rather Than Multi-Sector Pursuit of Population Health

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 004695801985697
Author(s):  
J. Mac McCullough
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Government Spending ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
County Level ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Health Social Services

Population health improvements can be achieved through work made possible by government spending on health care, public health, and social services. The extent to which spending allocations across these sectors is synergistic with or trade-off against one another is unknown. Achieving a balanced portfolio with multi-sector contributions is key to improving health outcomes. This study tested competing hypotheses regarding achievement of balanced multi-sector resources for health. County-level U.S. Census Bureau data on all local governmental spending measured each county’s average per capita local government spending for public hospitals, public health, social services, and education. American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey data on hospital community health service provision were used to calculate an index of hospital community service provision aggregated to county level by year. County Health Rankings data measured each county’s health outcomes and health factors. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression models (n = 1877 counties) predicted changes in spending for each government spending category based on two sets of predictors ( government spending vs community health services and needs) from current and prior year. Models account for average spending in each category and county-, state-, and time-trends. Models showed that spending increases in each of the four spending categories examined (public hospitals, public health, social services, and education) were not associated with changes in spending across other categories in current or prior years. For all categories, an increase from baseline spending levels in Year 1 was always significantly associated with an increase from baseline spending level in that same category in Year 2 (ie, spending stayed above baseline in Year 2). Multi-sector initiatives to health outcomes require funding across sectors, yet there was little evidence to suggest that communities that invest in public hospitals, public health, or other social services see commensurate increases in other areas. Underlying funding decisions may reflect strategic decisions within a community to scale up single sectors, constrained resources for multi-sector scale up, or a host of additional factors not measured here.

scholarly journals Sexually transmitted infection (STI) research priority-setting: a two-stage study including the perspectives of patients, the public, clinicians and stakeholders

2021 ◽  
pp. sextrans-2021-055054
Author(s):  
Hannah Louise Browne ◽  
Emily Clarke ◽  
Angela I Obasi
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Health Clinic ◽  
Rapid Diagnostics ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Transmitted Infection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Priority

ObjectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research priority-setting remains limited, especially for non-HIV STI. We identify and compare the top 10 patient and public STI research priorities with those of clinicians and STI stakeholders.MethodsThis two-stage study was conducted in May–August 2019. First, STI research priorities were canvassed through qualitative questionnaires issued to all patients attending a large sexual health clinic, all clinicians in region-wide mailing lists, all stakeholders identified through existing networks and the Charity Commission database, and to the Liverpool public. Raw responses were organised by theme into a shortlist of 25. In stage 2, these were ranked through priority-setting activities by telephone with patients and the public (n=8) and some clinicians (n=3), and in two workshops with clinicians (n=26) and stakeholders (n=5), respectively. The top 10 priorities were compared.ResultsOf 373 surveys submitted, 106 were analysed (83 patient and public; 23 clinician and stakeholder). Exclusions included lack of completion and responses out of scope. Among patient and public respondents, 55% (n=46) were aged 18–24 years, 51% (n=42) identified as heterosexual women and 23% (n=19) as men who have sex with men. Clinicians included all cadres; stakeholders were academics, commissioners and third sector representatives. In stage 2, 4 of 10 themes (STI education, targeted services for high-risk groups, antibiotic resistance and counselling for those with STI) were prioritised by all. Remote STI services and rapid diagnostics also ranked highly but the rationale differed between groups.ConclusionThis is the first non-HIV STI research priority-setting exercise to be reported in the UK. It identifies overlaps and differences between public and provider concerns, highlights gaps in the public understanding of STI research, and shows how PPI can promote research responsive to the concerns of both those who use and deliver services.

Hodnocení kvality života z pohledu místních aktérů: případová studie území MAS Podhůří Železných hor

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zdeněk Šilhan ◽  
Markéta Chaloupková ◽  
Hana Svobodová
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Participatory Methods ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Methods ◽  
Motorized Transport

The aim of the article is to evaluate the subjective aspects of the quality of life and local conditions for living in the area of the Local action group Podhůří Železných hor. In order to achieve this goal, a questionnaire survey was conducted. Also interviews with selected actors and discussion meetings with the public were used. where participatory methods of public involvement were used. Participatory methods of public participation were useful in the discussion meetings. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used. Standard methods were used for evaluation - basic statistical and thematic analysis. Thanks to the used methods, the local context was included in the evaluation. The highest rated area was nature and natural environment. Conversely, interpersonal relationships were the worst rated. According to the results, most need to improve are non-motorized transport and social services for seniors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document