Suppr超能文献

评估利益相关者在为国民保健制度健康检查构建决策支持工具方面的参与情况:共同开展 WorkHORSE 研究。

Evaluating stakeholder involvement in building a decision support tool for NHS health checks: co-producing the WorkHORSE study.

机构信息

Department of Public Health and Policy. Institute of Population Health Science, University of Liverpool, The Quadrangle, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Aug 10;20(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01205-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement is being increasingly recognised as an important way to achieving impact in public health. The WorkHORSE (Working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) project was designed to continuously engage with stakeholders to inform the development of an open access modelling tool to enable commissioners to quantify the potential cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check Programme. An objective of the project was to evaluate the involvement of stakeholders in co-producing the WorkHORSE computer modelling tool and examine how they perceived their involvement in the model building process and ultimately contributed to the strengthening and relevance of the modelling tool.

METHODS

We identified stakeholders using our extensive networks and snowballing techniques. Iterative development of the decision support modelling tool was informed through engaging with stakeholders during four workshops. We used detailed scripts facilitating open discussion and opportunities for stakeholders to provide additional feedback subsequently. At the end of each workshop, stakeholders and the research team completed questionnaires to explore their views and experiences throughout the process.

RESULTS

30 stakeholders participated, of which 15 attended two or more workshops. They spanned local (NHS commissioners, GPs, local authorities and academics), third sector and national organisations including Public Health England. Stakeholders felt valued, and commended the involvement of practitioners in the iterative process. Major reasons for attending included: being able to influence development, and having insight and understanding of what the tool could include, and how it would work in practice. Researchers saw the process as an opportunity for developing a common language and trust in the end product, and ensuring the support tool was transparent. The workshops acted as a reality check ensuring model scenarios and outputs were relevant and fit for purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

Computational modellers rarely consult with end users when developing tools to inform decision-making. The added value of co-production (continuing collaboration and iteration with stakeholders) enabled modellers to produce a "real-world" operational tool. Likewise, stakeholders had increased confidence in the decision support tool's development and applicability in practice.

摘要

背景

利益相关者的参与正日益被视为实现公共卫生影响力的重要途径。WorkHORSE(工作健康结果研究模拟环境)项目旨在与利益相关者持续合作,为开发一个开放获取的建模工具提供信息,使决策者能够量化 NHS 健康检查计划的潜在成本效益和公平性。该项目的一个目标是评估利益相关者在共同制作 WorkHORSE 计算机建模工具方面的参与情况,并研究他们如何看待自己在建模过程中的参与以及最终如何为加强和完善建模工具做出贡献。

方法

我们通过广泛的网络和滚雪球技术来确定利益相关者。通过在四个研讨会上与利益相关者合作,对决策支持建模工具进行迭代开发。我们使用详细的脚本促进公开讨论,并为利益相关者提供随后提供额外反馈的机会。在每次研讨会结束时,利益相关者和研究团队都会填写问卷,以探讨他们在整个过程中的看法和经验。

结果

有 30 名利益相关者参加了会议,其中 15 名利益相关者参加了两个或更多研讨会。他们涵盖了当地(NHS 专员、全科医生、地方当局和学术界)、第三部门和包括英格兰公共卫生署在内的全国性组织。利益相关者感到自己受到了重视,并称赞了从业者在迭代过程中的参与。参加的主要原因包括:能够影响发展,以及深入了解工具可以包含哪些内容,以及它在实践中如何运作。研究人员认为这个过程是一个发展共同语言和对最终产品的信任的机会,并确保支持工具的透明度。研讨会充当了一个现实检查,确保模型场景和输出是相关的和适合目的的。

结论

计算建模师在开发用于为决策提供信息的工具时很少与最终用户协商。共同制作(与利益相关者持续合作和迭代)的附加值使建模师能够制作出“真实世界”的可操作工具。同样,利益相关者对决策支持工具的开发及其在实践中的适用性更有信心。

相似文献

4
5
Stakeholder Engagement in the Development of Public Health Economic Models: An Application to Modelling of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in South Africa.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023 May;21(3):395-403. doi: 10.1007/s40258-023-00789-6. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
7
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250.
8
Evaluation of a stakeholder advisory board for an adolescent mental health randomized clinical trial.
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 Mar 28;9(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00425-6.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-research partnership.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Sep;29(9):746-755. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010059. Epub 2019 Dec 11.
6
The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Mar 28;17(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.
9
How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Jul 11;16(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6.
10
The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice.
Environ Manage. 2018 Jun;61(6):885-903. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3. Epub 2018 Apr 5.

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