Huntink Elke, van Lieshout Jan, Aakhus Eivind, Baker Richard, Flottorp Signe, Godycki-Cwirko Maciek, Jäger Cornelia, Kowalczyk Anna, Szecsenyi Joachim, Wensing Michel
Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Research Centre for Old Age Psychiatry, Innlandet Hospital Trust, 2312, Ottestad, Norway.
Implement Sci. 2014 Dec 6;9:185. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0185-x.
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.
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.
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.
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.
实施循证实践的定制策略可以通过多种方式生成。在本研究中,我们探讨了小组访谈对于生成这些策略的有用性,重点是改善慢性病患者的医疗保健。
参与者包括五个国家至少四类利益相关者(研究人员、质量管理人员、卫生专业人员和外部利益相关者)。访谈包括头脑风暴,随后进行结构化访谈,并聚焦于每个国家的不同慢性病。我们比较了利益相关者类别之间以及访谈阶段之间策略的数量和类型。我们还确定了哪些策略实际用于定制干预项目。
共有127人参与了五个国家的25次小组访谈。头脑风暴每组产生8至120条策略;结构化访谈增加了0至55条策略。卫生专业人员和研究人员提供的策略数量最多。在五个国家中的四个国家,利益相关者群体之间改善医疗实践的策略类型没有系统性差异。在五个国家中的三个国家,研究人员小组提到了所选干预项目的所有组成部分。
与不同利益相关者类别进行的小组访谈产生了许多用于循证实践定制实施的策略,其内容在利益相关者类别之间基本相似。