[Medial forebrain bundle and stria medullaris thalami in cats and rabbits].

N. Hagino

1961-08-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

User Experience of the Co-design Research Approach in eHealth: Activity Analysis With the Course-of-Action Framework

Melanie Tremblay,Christine Hamel,Anabelle Viau-Guay,Dominique Giroux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/35577

2022-08-09

JMIR Human Factors

Abstract:Background The cocreation of eHealth solutions with potential users, or co-design, can help make the solution more acceptable. However, the co-design research approach requires substantial investment, and projects are not always fruitful. Researchers have provided guidelines for the co-design approach, but these are either applicable only in specific situations or not supported by empirical data. Ways to optimize the experience of the co-design process from the point of view of the participants are also missing. Scientific literature in the co-design field generally provides an extrinsic description of the experience of participants in co-design projects. Objective We addressed this issue by describing a co-design project and focusing on the participants’ experiences looking at what was significant from their point of view. Methods We used a qualitative situated cognitive anthropology approach for this study. Data were collected on a co-design research project that aimed to support the help-seeking process of caregivers of functionally dependent older adults. The methodology was based on the perspective of experience by Dewey and used the course-of-action theoretical and methodological framework. Data collection was conducted in 2 phases: observation of participants and recording of sessions and participant self-confrontation interviews using the session recordings. We interviewed 27% (20/74) of the participants. We analyzed the data through nonexclusive emerging categorization of themes using the constant comparative method. Results In total, 5 emerging themes were identified. The perception of extrinsic constraints and the effects of the situation was central and the most important theme, affecting other themes (frustrating interactions with others, learning together, destabilization, and getting personal benefits). Co-occurrences between codes allowed for a visual and narrative understanding of what was significant for the participants during this project. The results highlighted the importance of the role of the research team in preparing and moderating the sessions. They also provided a detailed description of the interactions between participants during the sessions, which is a core aspect of the co-design approach. There were positive and negative aspects of the participants’ experiences during this co-design project. Reflecting on our results, we provided potential affordances to shape the experience of participants in co-design. Conclusions Potential users are an essential component of the co-design research approach. Researchers and designers should seek to offer these users a positive and contributory experience to encourage participation in further co-design initiatives. Future research should explore how the proposed affordances influence the success of the intervention.
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs

Irene Korstjens,Albine Moser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375090

2017-10-02

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By 'novice' we mean Master's students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the 'big three' qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a 'lens' to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis

Albine Moser,Irene Korstjens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091

2017-12-04

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By 'novice' we mean Master's students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs, and referred to publications for further reading. This third article addresses FAQs about sampling, data collection and analysis. The data collection plan needs to be broadly defined and open at first, and become flexible during data collection. Sampling strategies should be chosen in such a way that they yield rich information and are consistent with the methodological approach used. Data saturation determines sample size and will be different for each study. The most commonly used data collection methods are participant observation, face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Analyses in ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and content analysis studies yield different narrative findings: a detailed description of a culture, the essence of the lived experience, a theory, and a descriptive summary, respectively. The fourth and final article will focus on trustworthiness and publishing qualitative research.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Quality-improvement initiatives focused on enhancing customer service in the outpatient pharmacy.

Tenley J Poulin,K. Bain,Bonnie K Balderose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp150152

2015-09-01

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Abstract:PURPOSE The development and implementation of quality-improvement initiatives to enhance customer service in an outpatient pharmacy of a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center are described. SUMMARY Historically low customer service satisfaction rates with the outpatient pharmacy at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center prompted this quality-improvement project. A three-question survey was designed to be easily and quickly administered to veterans in the outpatient pharmacy waiting area. Using 5-point Likert scale, veterans were asked to rate (1) their overall experience with the outpatient pharmacy service and (2) their satisfaction with the customer service provided by the pharmacy department. They were also asked how they thought the pharmacy department could improve its customer service. After receiving feedback from the survey, several quality-improvement initiatives were developed. The initiatives were categorized as environmental, personnel, communicative, and technological. For each initiative, one or more tasks were developed and the initiatives were subsequently implemented over eight months. After each task was completed, veterans were surveyed to measure the impact of the change. A total of 79 veterans were surveyed before the implementation of the quality-improvement initiatives, and 49% and 68% rated their experience with the outpatient pharmacy and customer service favorably, respectively. Twenty-five veterans were surveyed after the implementation of numerous quality-improvement interventions, with 44% and 72% rating their experience with the outpatient pharmacy and customer service favorably. CONCLUSION Customer service satisfaction with an outpatient pharmacy service at a VA medical center was enhanced through the implementation of various quality-improvement initiatives.
Localized osteitis fibrosa cystica (solitary bone cyst).

A. Basu

Indian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:
Histology of retinal lesions produced with Q-switched lasers.

J. Marshall,H. Mellerio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-4835(68)80071-5

IF: 3.77

1968-04-01

Experimental Eye Research

Abstract:
Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

Trisha Greenhalgh,Claire Jackson,Sara Shaw,Tina Janamian,TRISHA GREENHALGH,CLAIRE JACKSON,SARA SHAW,TINA JANAMIAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197

2016-06-01

The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:POLICY POINTS: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-is an increasingly popular approach to aligning research and service development. It has potential for "moving beyond the ivory towers" to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community-academic partnerships. Principles of successful co-creation include a systems perspective, a creative approach to research focused on improving human experience, and careful attention to governance and process. If these principles are not followed, co-creation efforts may fail.CONTEXT: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-reflects a "Mode 2" relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact.METHODS: We undertook a narrative review of different models of co-creation relevant to community-based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community-based research-service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia.FINDINGS: Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies ("value co-creation"), design science ("experience-based co-design"), computer science ("technology co-design"), and community development ("participatory research"). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co-creation "failures" could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co-creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study.CONCLUSIONS: Co-creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co-creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.
Exploring Participants' Experiences of Digital Health Interventions With Qualitative Methods: Guidance for Researchers

Kristin Harrison Ginsberg,Katie Babbott,Anna Serlachius

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/62761

IF: 7.076

2024-11-29

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Digital health interventions have gained prominence in recent years, offering innovative solutions to improve health care delivery and patient outcomes. Researchers are increasingly using qualitative approaches to explore patient experiences of using digital health interventions. Yet, the qualitative methods used in these studies can vary widely, and some methods are frequently misapplied. We highlight the methods we find most fit for purpose to explore user experiences of digital tools and propose 5 questions for researchers to use to help them select a qualitative method that best suits their research aims.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing

Irene Korstjens,Albine Moser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092

2017-12-05

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:In the course of our supervisory work over the years we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By 'novice' we mean Master's students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The first article provides an introduction to this series. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs. The third article focused on sampling, data collection and analysis. This fourth article addresses FAQs about trustworthiness and publishing. Quality criteria for all qualitative research are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Reflexivity is an integral part of ensuring the transparency and quality of qualitative research. Writing a qualitative research article reflects the iterative nature of the qualitative research process: data analysis continues while writing. A qualitative research article is mostly narrative and tends to be longer than a quantitative paper, and sometimes requires a different structure. Editors essentially use the criteria: is it new, is it true, is it relevant? An effective cover letter enhances confidence in the newness, trueness and relevance, and explains why your study required a qualitative design. It provides information about the way you applied quality criteria or a checklist, and you can attach the checklist to the manuscript.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Transforming health-care service through consumer co-creation: directions for service design

Joan Carlini,Rachel Muir,Annette McLaren-Kennedy,Laurie Grealish

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-12-2022-0373

IF: 5.246

2023-11-24

Journal of Services Marketing

Abstract:Purpose The increasing financial burden and complexity of health-care services, exacerbated by factors such as an ageing population and the rise of chronic conditions, necessitate comprehensive and integrated care approaches. While co-created service design has proven valuable in transforming some service industries, its application to the health-care industry is not well understood. This study aims to examine how health consumers are involved in health-care service co-creation. Design/methodology/approach The study searched 11 electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2019. Additionally, hand searches of reference lists from included studies, Google © citation searches and searches for grey literature were conducted. The Whittemore and Knafl integrative framework guided the systematic review, and Callahan's 6 Ws framework was used to extract data from the included articles, facilitating comparisons. Findings The authors identified 21 articles, mainly from the UK, North America and Australia. Despite the need for more research, findings reveal limited and geographically narrow empirical studies with restricted theory and method applications. From these findings, the authors constructed a conceptual model to enhance nuanced understanding. Originality/value This study offers four contributions. First, it introduces the Health Service Design Transformation Model for Comprehensive Consumer Co-Creation, illustrating health consumers' multifaceted roles in shaping services. Second, consumer vulnerabilities in co-creating services are identified, linked to diverse consumer groups, power dynamics and decision complexity. Third, this study suggests broadening participant inclusion may enhance consumer-centricity, inclusivity and innovation in service design. Finally, the research agenda explores consumer experiences, organizational dynamics, value outcomes and co-creation theory for health-care service advancement.

business
Understanding Co‐Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient‐Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study

Hanna Jansson,Jamie L. Luckhaus,Henna Hasson,Pamela Mazzocato,Terese Stenfors,Carolina Wannheden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70003

2024-09-03

Health Expectations

Abstract:Background Research indicates that successful co‐creation depends on a shared understanding of co‐creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co‐creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co‐creation and how this understanding changes over time. Methods An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the 'Patients in the Driver's Seat' partnership research programme. Fifty‐eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. Findings Four different ways of understanding co‐creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs‐process‐outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co‐creation among partnership programme members. Conclusions Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co‐creation. The study suggests that co‐creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs. Patient or Public Contribution This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co‐creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

Peter Slattery,Alexander K. Saeri,Peter Bragge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9

2020-02-11

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:Abstract Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement . Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

health policy & services
Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Sophie Béland,Mireille Lambert,Alannah Delahunty-Pike,Dana Howse,Charlotte Schwarz,Maud-Christine Chouinard,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Fred Burge,Shelley Doucet,Alya Danish,Olivier Dumont-Samson,Mathieu Bisson,Alison Luke,Marilyn Macdonald,André Gaudreau,Judy Porter,Donna Rubenstein,Véronique Sabourin,Cathy Scott,Mike Warren,Linda Wilhelm,Catherine Hudon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13542

Abstract:Background: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi-structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two-way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or public contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video.
Experiences of participants in the co-design of a community-based health service for people with high healthcare service use

Deirdre McGowan,Claire Morley,Emily Hansen,Kelly Shaw,Tania Winzenberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10788-5

2024-03-15

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Incorporating perspectives of health consumers, healthcare workers, policy makers and stakeholders through co-design is essential to design services that are fit for purpose. However, the experiences of co-design participants are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of people involved in the co-design of a new service for people with high healthcare service utilisation.

health care sciences & services
Absence of policy on how to use statins in England and Wales: do not let JBS2 fill the void

M. Duerden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01575.x

IF: 2.6

2007-12-01

International Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract:1 Varughese G, Jammalamadaka D, Varghese A, Babu S, Reddy M. Colchicine in acute gout: the need for a reappraisal. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 2132–3. 2 Varughese GI, Varghese A. Colchicine in acute gouty arthritis: the optimum dose? Arthritis Res Ther 2006; 8: 405. 3 Varughese GI, Varghese AT, Tahrani A. Colchicine: time to rethink. N Z Med J 2007; 120: U2429. 4 Morris I, Varughese A, Mattingly P. Colchicine in acute gout. Br Med J 2003; 327: 1275–6. 5 Tahrani AA, Sharma S, Macleon A, Moulik P. A case of multi-organ failure. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 514–8. 6 Jayaprakash V, Ansell G, Galler D. Colchicine overdosage: the devil is in the detail. N Z Med J 2007; 120: U2402. 7 Schlesinger N, Schumacher R, Catton M, Maxwell L. Colchicine in acute gout. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007. http://www.mrw.inter science.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD006190/pdf_fs.html. 8 Ahern MJ, Reid C, Gordon TP, McCredie M, Brooks PM, Jones M. Does colchicine work? The results of the first controlled study in acute gout. Aust N Z J Med 1987; 17: 301–4. 9 Bonnel RA, Villalba ML, Karwoski CB, Beitz J. Deaths associated with inappropriate intravenous colchicine administration. Emerg Med 2002; 22: 385–7.
Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

Sanne Peters,Lisa Guccione,Jill Francis,Stephanie Best,Emma Tavender,Janet Curran,Katie Davies,Stephanie Rowe,Victoria J. Palmer,Marlena Klaic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01394-4

2024-09-14

Implementation Science

Abstract:Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
A Worked Example of Qualitative Descriptive Design: A Step‐by‐Step Guide for Novice and Early Career Researchers

Princess Villamin,Violeta Lopez,Deependra Kaji Thapa,Michelle Cleary

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16481

IF: 3.057

2024-10-11

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:Aim To provide a worked example informed by relevant literature and related studies that novice and early career researchers may use to reflect on, prepare and conduct a thoughtful and rigorous qualitative descriptive study. Design Methodological discussion of qualitative descriptive design. Methods Seminal work and recent related literature were reviewed to situate the discussion and identify the concepts and steps to conduct a qualitative descriptive study. Results Qualitative descriptive design is widely used in nursing and health science research. This design offers flexible use of qualitative methods, which presents a double‐edged sword, posing challenges in preparing a well‐developed study and achieving methodological rigour. The design often borrows methods from other qualitative traditions, which may need to be clarified for novice and early career researchers, wherein studies may be conducted using a mix and match of methods without giving justice to the heart of qualitative descriptive design. In this paper, we present a step‐by‐step guide, using a worked example, to demonstrate how to conduct a qualitative descriptive study. Conclusion Qualitative descriptive design may be confusing due to its flexibility, which may limit the scope of research and subsequently, the quality and impact of the findings. With the appropriate application of research methods producing high‐quality and relevant findings, qualitative descriptive design is a valuable qualitative method in its own right. Implications for the Profession Novice and early career researchers may increase the impact of their findings through rigorously conducting their studies. Clarifying steps for thoughtful execution may inform novice and early career researchers, allowing for a rigorous application of the method, which, in turn, may contribute to impactful findings. Impact A clear presentation of steps, supported by a worked example and related studies, may support novice and early career researchers in conducting a qualitative descriptive study with methodological rigour. Reporting Method Not applicable. Patient or Public Contribution No patient or public contribution.

nursing
IIIB-4 shallow junction formation for CMOS VLSI application using Tin preamorphization

B. Molnar,H. Dietrich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/T-ED.1986.22786

IF: 3.1

1986-11-01

IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices

Abstract:
Interviewing persons-supported in an evaluation of individual person-centred care plan development for community-care services: practical methodological considerations

Brian Dunne,Gillian Young,Donnie Antony,Ruth Armstrong,Bridget Ryan,Shannon Sibbald,Yona Lunsky,Leslie Meredith,Maria Mathews

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.icic23427

2023-12-28

International Journal of Integrated Care

Abstract:Background: Person-centred care plans (PCPs) have been identified as a promising upstream intervention to address health inequities in the community-care population. Studies in primary care and long-term care have shown that a person-centred approach has the potential to reduce costly and preventable health service utilization, improve health outcomes, and improve person-supported and provider experiences. PHSS Medical and Complex Care in Community (hereafter PHSS) uses an individualized, person-centred, participatory model of care. PHSS creates PCPs through a series of discussions with the person-supported, and with input from family members, friends, staff, and community members. PCPs incorporate personal goals and support participation in activities that are meaningful to each person-supported. PCPs are annually reviewed and updated, and provide a road map to services and supports, with options tailored to individual needs and capacities. PHSS is a partner in the research project and has been involved in team meetings and all project decisions. Objectives: As part of a larger project evaluating PCPs, we conducted interviews with person-supported by PHSS which includes individuals with physical and developmental disabilities and complex medical conditions that may pose challenges to conducting traditional qualitative interviews. We describe experiences of conducting interviews with persons-supported, and outline practical steps in gathering data from this population. Methods: Using a descriptive qualitative design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 persons-supported. PHSS staff acted as an intermediary to help recruit and consent participants and conduct interviews. Participants chose where interviews took place and whether or not staff was present. Interviews were conducted in person, took up to 30 minutes, were recorded, and transcribed verbatim for analysis. In each interview, we asked about: the process used to create PCPs; examples of how PCPs were tailored to the person-supported’s goals; perceived benefits and challenges of carrying out the PCP on persons-supported, their families, and on staff; and supports/barriers that facilitate/hinder the individualized participatory process. We also gathered relevant demographic data to describe participants. Using correspondence from the research ethics board, field notes (including notes from reflection journals), we outline practical steps in conducting interviews with vulnerable, often non-verbal participants. Results: We outline five overarching themes. Interviews with persons-supported were aided by: 1) negotiation with research ethics officers to allow recruitment and consenting by an intermediary (i.e. PHSS); 2) using copies of the PCP in the interview as a common point of reference; 3) the presence of staff who facilitated communication; 4) organizational support in recruiting participants and scheduling interviews; and 5) having a trained interviewer with experience working with persons-supported and knowledge of adapted processes for individual capacity and circumstances. Discussion: Conducting interviews with persons-supported is consistent with a “nothing about us without us” approach, but requires attention to ensure ethics requirements are satisfied and individual and practical considerations are incorporated into the research plan. An integrated knowledge translation approach, wherein researchers and providers work closely together to develop the research plan, is integral to facilitating participation of persons-supported in research. Conclusion: Creative and flexible approaches are needed to include persons-supported in research.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Co-Producing Social, Cultural, and Economic Value in Care Through a Generative and Relational Approach

Luis Soares,Sarah Kettley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21111521

IF: 4.614

2024-11-18

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Work has been undertaken in the healthcare sector to explore ways of co-producing design responses with different communities and organisations. However, we lack empirical analysis of how design thinking can help tackle complexity. To assist the Healthier Working Lives programme, we curated the Ripple Framework to develop trust and attempt to address the challenges of complexity in residential care. Through a generative design process, data were used to collaboratively define bespoke co-design pathways with 31 participants from six Scottish care providers over ten months. Thematic, content, and matrix analyses produced insights to inform vignettes illustrating how design responded to complex social care sector needs, with a particular focus on the fulfilment and flourishing of the care workforce. Drawing on our empirical material and using the Design Research Value Model, we illustrate how we have developed social, cultural, and economic value in care through co-design, enabling an opportunity to test the novel methodology.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences

[Medial forebrain bundle and stria medullaris thalami in cats and rabbits].

User Experience of the Co-design Research Approach in eHealth: Activity Analysis With the Course-of-Action Framework

Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 2: Context, research questions and designs

Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis

Quality-improvement initiatives focused on enhancing customer service in the outpatient pharmacy.

Localized osteitis fibrosa cystica (solitary bone cyst).

Histology of retinal lesions produced with Q-switched lasers.

Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

Exploring Participants' Experiences of Digital Health Interventions With Qualitative Methods: Guidance for Researchers

Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing

Transforming health-care service through consumer co-creation: directions for service design

Understanding Co‐Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient‐Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study

Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

Patient and researcher experiences of patient engagement in primary care health care research: A participatory qualitative study

Experiences of participants in the co-design of a community-based health service for people with high healthcare service use

Absence of policy on how to use statins in England and Wales: do not let JBS2 fill the void

Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework

A Worked Example of Qualitative Descriptive Design: A Step‐by‐Step Guide for Novice and Early Career Researchers

IIIB-4 shallow junction formation for CMOS VLSI application using Tin preamorphization

Interviewing persons-supported in an evaluation of individual person-centred care plan development for community-care services: practical methodological considerations

Co-Producing Social, Cultural, and Economic Value in Care Through a Generative and Relational Approach