Suppr超能文献

一项关于临床医生和社区成员对干预工具包看法的定性研究:“除非使用工具包,否则无助于解决问题”。

A qualitative study of clinic and community member perspectives on intervention toolkits: "Unless the toolkit is used it won't help solve the problem".

作者信息

Davis Melinda M, Howk Sonya, Spurlock Margaret, McGinnis Paul B, Cohen Deborah J, Fagnan Lyle J

机构信息

Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN), School of Medicine (Department of Family Medicine), School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road Mailcode: FM, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.

Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mailcode: L222, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jul 18;17(1):497. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2413-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Intervention toolkits are common products of grant-funded research in public health and primary care settings. Toolkits are designed to address the knowledge translation gap by speeding implementation and dissemination of research into practice. However, few studies describe characteristics of effective intervention toolkits and their implementation. Therefore, we conducted this study to explore what clinic and community-based users want in intervention toolkits and to identify the factors that support application in practice.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study we conducted focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of community health coalition members, public health experts, and primary care professionals between November 2010 and January 2012. The transdisciplinary research team used thematic analysis to identify themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant role and toolkit experience.

RESULTS

Ninety six participants representing primary care (n = 54, 56%) and community settings (n = 42, 44%) participated in 18 sessions (13 focus groups, five key informant interviews). Participants ranged from those naïve through expert in toolkit development; many reported limited application of toolkits in actual practice. Participants wanted toolkits targeted at the right audience and demonstrated to be effective. Well organized toolkits, often with a quick start guide, with tools that were easy to tailor and apply were desired. Irrespective of perceived quality, participants experienced with practice change emphasized that leadership, staff buy-in, and facilitative support was essential for intervention toolkits to be translated into changes in clinic or public -health practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the emphasis on toolkits in supporting implementation and dissemination of research and clinical guidelines, studies are warranted to determine when and how toolkits are used. Funders, policy makers, researchers, and leaders in primary care and public health are encouraged to allocate resources to foster both toolkit development and implementation. Support, through practice facilitation and organizational leadership, are critical for translating knowledge from intervention toolkits into practice.

摘要

背景

干预工具包是公共卫生和初级保健领域资助研究的常见产物。工具包旨在通过加快研究成果在实践中的实施和传播来弥合知识转化差距。然而,很少有研究描述有效干预工具包的特征及其实施情况。因此,我们开展了这项研究,以探讨临床和社区用户对干预工具包的需求,并确定支持其在实践中应用的因素。

方法

在这项定性描述性研究中,我们于2010年11月至2012年1月期间,对社区健康联盟成员、公共卫生专家和初级保健专业人员的目标样本进行了焦点小组讨论和访谈。跨学科研究团队采用主题分析来确定主题,并通过跨案例比较分析来探讨参与者角色和工具包使用经验的差异。

结果

96名代表初级保健(n = 54,56%)和社区环境(n = 42,44%)的参与者参加了18次会议(13个焦点小组、5次关键信息访谈)。参与者从工具包开发的新手到专家不等;许多人报告称工具包在实际实践中的应用有限。参与者希望工具包针对合适的受众,并证明是有效的。他们需要组织良好的工具包,通常要有快速入门指南,其工具易于定制和应用。无论工具包的质量如何,有实践变革经验的参与者强调,领导力、员工支持和促进性支持对于将干预工具包转化为临床或公共卫生实践的变革至关重要。

结论

鉴于工具包在支持研究和临床指南的实施与传播方面的重要性,有必要开展研究以确定工具包的使用时间和方式。鼓励资助者、政策制定者、研究人员以及初级保健和公共卫生领域的领导者分配资源,以促进工具包的开发和实施。通过实践促进和组织领导提供支持,对于将干预工具包中的知识转化为实践至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5fb7/5516321/4824bff98381/12913_2017_2413_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验