Suppr超能文献

与利益相关者合作,为 NHS 健康检查计划开发决策支持工具:定性研究。

Engaging with stakeholders to inform the development of a decision-support tool for the NHS health check programme: qualitative study.

机构信息

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Department of Health Services Research, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 11;20(1):394. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05268-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The NHS Health Check Programme is a risk-reduction programme offered to all adults in England aged 40-74 years. Previous studies mainly focused on patient perspectives and programme delivery; however, delivery varies, and costs are substantial. We were therefore working with key stakeholders to develop and co-produce an NHS Health Check Programme modelling tool (workHORSE) for commissioners to quantify local effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Here we report on Workshop 1, which specifically aimed to facilitate engagement with stakeholders; develop a shared understanding of current Health Check implementation; identify what is working well, less well, and future hopes; and explore features to include in the tool.

METHODS

This qualitative study identified key stakeholders across the UK via networking and snowball techniques. The stakeholders spanned local organisations (NHS commissioners, GPs, and academics), third sector and national organisations (Public Health England and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). We used the validated Hovmand "group model building" approach to engage stakeholders in a series of pre-piloted, structured, small group exercises. We then used Framework Analysis to analyse responses.

RESULTS

Fifteen stakeholders participated in workshop 1. Stakeholders identified continued financial and political support for the NHS Health Check Programme. However, many stakeholders highlighted issues concerning lack of data on processes and outcomes, variability in quality of delivery, and suboptimal public engagement. Stakeholders' hopes included maximising coverage, uptake, and referrals, and producing additional evidence on population health, equity, and economic impacts. Key model suggestions focused on developing good-practice template scenarios, analysis of broader prevention activities at local level, accessible local data, broader economic perspectives, and fit-for-purpose outputs.

CONCLUSIONS

A shared understanding of current implementations of the NHS Health Check Programme was developed. Stakeholders demonstrated their commitment to the NHS Health Check Programme whilst highlighting the perceived requirements for enhancing the service and discussed how the modelling tool could be instrumental in this process. These suggestions for improvement informed subsequent workshops and model development.

摘要

背景

NHS 健康检查计划是向英格兰所有 40-74 岁成年人提供的一项降低风险计划。之前的研究主要集中在患者视角和项目实施上;然而,实施情况各不相同,成本也很高。因此,我们一直在与主要利益相关者合作,开发和共同制作 NHS 健康检查计划建模工具(workHORSE),供决策者量化当地的有效性、成本效益和公平性。在这里,我们报告了第 1 次研讨会,该研讨会专门旨在促进利益相关者的参与;形成对当前健康检查实施的共同理解;确定哪些方面运作良好,哪些方面运作不佳,以及未来的希望;并探讨工具中应包含的功能。

方法

这项定性研究通过网络和滚雪球技术确定了英国各地的主要利益相关者。这些利益相关者涵盖了当地组织(NHS 决策者、全科医生和学者)、第三部门和国家组织(英格兰公共卫生署和国家卫生与保健卓越研究所)。我们使用经过验证的 Hovmand“小组模型构建”方法,让利益相关者参与一系列预先试点的、结构化的小组练习。然后,我们使用框架分析来分析回应。

结果

第 1 次研讨会有 15 名利益相关者参加。利益相关者表示继续支持 NHS 健康检查计划的财务和政治支持。然而,许多利益相关者强调了缺乏有关流程和结果的数据、提供服务质量的差异以及公众参与不足等问题。利益相关者的希望包括最大限度地提高覆盖率、参与率和转诊率,并在人群健康、公平和经济影响方面提供更多证据。关键的模型建议集中在开发良好实践模板场景、分析当地更广泛的预防活动、获取本地数据、更广泛的经济视角以及适合用途的产出上。

结论

对 NHS 健康检查计划当前实施情况形成了共同的理解。利益相关者在强调提高服务质量的预期要求的同时,展示了对 NHS 健康检查计划的承诺,并讨论了建模工具如何在这一过程中发挥作用。这些改进建议为随后的研讨会和模型开发提供了信息。

相似文献

4
What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Jul;11(12):1-133. doi: 10.3310/RGTH4127.
5

本文引用的文献

1
Decision makers' experience of participatory dynamic simulation modelling: methods for public health policy.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Dec 12;18(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0707-6.
2
Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review.
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jul;68(672):e449-e459. doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X697649. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
4
Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e28-e35. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X693929. Epub 2017 Dec 4.
6
Evaluating and Using Observational Evidence: The Contrasting Views of Policy Makers and Epidemiologists.
Front Public Health. 2016 Dec 6;4:267. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00267. eCollection 2016.
7
Applications of system dynamics modelling to support health policy.
Public Health Res Pract. 2015 Jul 9;25(3):e2531531. doi: 10.17061/phrp2531531.
9
Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
10
Shifting sands - from descriptions to solutions.
Public Health. 2014 Jun;128(6):525-32. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.03.013. Epub 2014 Jun 7.

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