Department of Health Behavior, Society, and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, 112 Paterson Ave, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Implement Sci. 2021 Mar 11;16(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01084-5.
Calls have been made for greater application of the decision sciences to investigate and improve use of research evidence in mental health policy and practice. This article proposes a novel method, "decision sampling," to improve the study of decision-making and research evidence use in policy and programmatic innovation. An illustrative case study applies the decision sampling framework to investigate the decisions made by mid-level administrators when developing system-wide interventions to identify and treat the trauma of children entering foster care.
Decision sampling grounds qualitative inquiry in decision analysis to elicit information about the decision-making process. Our case study engaged mid-level managers in public sector agencies (n = 32) from 12 states, anchoring responses on a recent index decision regarding universal trauma screening for children entering foster care. Qualitative semi-structured interviews inquired on questions aligned with key components of decision analysis, systematically collecting information on the index decisions, choices considered, information synthesized, expertise accessed, and ultimately the values expressed when selecting among available alternatives.
Findings resulted in identification of a case-specific decision set, gaps in available evidence across the decision set, and an understanding of the values that guided decision-making. Specifically, respondents described 14 inter-related decision points summarized in five domains for adoption of universal trauma screening protocols, including (1) reach of the screening protocol, (2) content of the screening tool, (3) threshold for referral, (4) resources for screening startup and sustainment, and (5) system capacity to respond to identified needs. Respondents engaged a continuum of information that ranged from anecdote to research evidence, synthesizing multiple types of knowledge with their expertise. Policy, clinical, and delivery system experts were consulted to help address gaps in available information, prioritize specific information, and assess "fit to context." The role of values was revealed as participants evaluated potential trade-offs and selected among policy alternatives.
The decision sampling framework is a novel methodological approach to investigate the decision-making process and ultimately aims to inform the development of future dissemination and implementation strategies by identifying the evidence gaps and values expressed by the decision-makers, themselves.
人们呼吁更多地应用决策科学来研究和改善心理健康政策和实践中研究证据的使用。本文提出了一种新方法,即“决策抽样”,以改进政策和计划创新中决策和研究证据使用的研究。一个说明性的案例研究应用决策抽样框架来调查中层管理人员在制定系统干预措施以识别和治疗进入寄养的儿童创伤时所做的决策。
决策抽样将定性研究扎根于决策分析中,以获取有关决策过程的信息。我们的案例研究让来自 12 个州的公共部门机构的中层管理人员(n=32)参与进来,他们的回答以最近关于对进入寄养的儿童进行普遍创伤筛查的索引决策为依据。半结构化的定性访谈询问了与决策分析关键组成部分一致的问题,系统地收集了关于索引决策、考虑的选择、综合信息、获取的专业知识以及在选择可用替代方案时表达的最终价值观的信息。
研究结果确定了一个特定案例的决策集、决策集中可用证据的差距以及指导决策的价值观。具体而言,受访者描述了在采用普遍创伤筛查方案时,五个领域中的 14 个相互关联的决策点,包括:(1)筛查方案的覆盖范围,(2)筛查工具的内容,(3)转诊的门槛,(4)筛查启动和维持的资源,以及(5)系统应对已确定需求的能力。受访者利用从轶事到研究证据的连续信息,综合多种类型的知识和他们的专业知识。为了帮助解决可用信息的差距、确定特定信息的优先级以及评估“与背景的契合度”,咨询了政策、临床和交付系统专家。随着参与者评估潜在的权衡并在政策替代方案中进行选择,价值观的作用也显露出来。
决策抽样框架是一种新的方法学方法,用于研究决策过程,最终旨在通过确定决策者自身表达的证据差距和价值观,为未来的传播和实施策略的制定提供信息。