VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd., Building 206, Los Angeles, CA, 90073, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):492-494. doi: 10.1007/s13142-017-0528-7.
In this commentary, we respond to the commentary provided by Goodman and Sanders Thompson regarding our paper on multilevel stakeholder engagement in a VA implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) in women's health primary care. We clarify our overall approach to engagement (comprised of both symbolic and engaged participation, according to the authors' classification rubric), highlighting that symbolic participation is of more import and value than the authors suggest, especially in the context of a hierarchical healthcare system. We contend that the issue of power-and how power matters in stakeholder engagement-needs to be considered in this context rather than in global "community" terms. In response to the authors' call for greater detail, we clarify our planning processes as well as our approach to veteran engagement. We concur with Goodman and Sanders Thompson that the science of stakeholder engagement necessitates a broader understanding of best practices as well as the impact of engagement on implementation outcomes.
在这篇评论中,我们回应了 Goodman 和 Sanders Thompson 就我们关于在退伍军人事务部实施基于证据的质量改进(EBQI)的妇女健康初级保健试验中多层次利益相关者参与的论文所发表的评论。我们澄清了我们对参与的总体方法(根据作者的分类标准,包括象征性参与和参与性参与),强调象征性参与比作者所建议的更为重要和有价值,尤其是在层级式医疗保健系统的背景下。我们认为,权力问题——以及权力在利益相关者参与中的重要性——需要在这种情况下进行考虑,而不是用全球“社区”的术语来考虑。针对作者呼吁提供更多细节,我们澄清了我们的规划过程以及我们对退伍军人参与的方法。我们同意 Goodman 和 Sanders Thompson 的观点,即利益相关者参与的科学需要更广泛地了解最佳实践以及参与对实施结果的影响。