Suppr超能文献

探索“微笑人生”从业者的参与行为:苏格兰针对无家可归者的全国口腔健康改善计划评估所得经验教训

Exploring the engagement behaviours of Smile4life practitioners: lessons from an evaluation of the national oral health improvement programme for people experiencing homelessness in Scotland.

作者信息

Beaton Laura, Rodriguez Andrea, Humphris Gerry, Anderson Isobel, Freeman Ruth

机构信息

School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.

School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Front Oral Health. 2024 Jan 4;4:1289348. doi: 10.3389/froh.2023.1289348. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Smile4life is Scotland's national oral health improvement programme for people experiencing homelessness, aimed at reducing oral health inequalities experienced by this population. This study forms part of an evaluation of how the Smile4life intervention was being implemented within Scottish NHS Boards. The aim was to investigate the influence of the Smile4life intervention upon the engagement behaviours of Smile4life practitioners.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with Smile4life practitioners, to provide an insight into how the Smile4life intervention affected their skills, attitudes and experiences while interacting with people experiencing homelessness and their services providers. A purposive sample of oral health practitioners, including dental health support workers, oral health promoters/educators, and oral health improvement coordinators working in three NHS Boards were invited to take part. One focus group was conducted in each of the three NHS Boards. The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. The COM-B model of behaviour was used as a framework for analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven Smile4life practitioners took part in the focus groups. All had first-hand experience of working with the Smile4life intervention. The average focus group length was 67 min. Working on the Smile4life intervention provided the Smile4life practitioners with: (i) the capability (physical and psychological), (ii) the opportunity (to establish methods of communication and relationships with service providers and service users) and (iii) the motivation to engage with Third Sector homelessness services and service users, by reflecting upon their positive and negative experiences delivering the intervention. Enablers and barriers to this engagement were identified according to each of the COM-B categories. Enablers included: practitioners' sense of responsibility, reflecting on positive past experiences and success stories with service users. Barriers included: lack of resources, negative past experiences and poor relationships between Smile4life practitioners and Third Sector staff.

CONCLUSION

The Smile4life programme promoted capability, provided opportunities and increased motivation in those practitioners who cross disciplinary boundaries to implement the Smile4life intervention, which can be conceptualised as "boundary spanning". Practitioners who were found to be boundary spanners often had a positive mindset and proactive attitude towards the creation of strategies to overcome the challenges of implementation by bridging the gaps between the NHS and the Third Sector, and between oral health and homelessness, operating across differing fields to achieve their aims.

摘要

引言

“微笑生活”是苏格兰针对无家可归者的全国性口腔健康改善项目,旨在减少这一人群所面临的口腔健康不平等问题。本研究是对“微笑生活”干预措施在苏格兰国民保健服务委员会内部实施情况评估的一部分。目的是调查“微笑生活”干预措施对“微笑生活”从业者参与行为的影响。

方法

与“微笑生活”从业者进行了焦点小组讨论,以深入了解“微笑生活”干预措施在与无家可归者及其服务提供者互动时如何影响他们的技能、态度和经历。邀请了在三个国民保健服务委员会工作的口腔健康从业者(包括牙科健康支持人员、口腔健康促进者/教育工作者和口腔健康改善协调员)组成的有目的样本参与。在三个国民保健服务委员会中各进行了一次焦点小组讨论。焦点小组讨论进行了录音和转录。行为的COM-B模型被用作分析框架。

结果

11名“微笑生活”从业者参加了焦点小组讨论。他们都有参与“微笑生活”干预措施的第一手经验。焦点小组讨论的平均时长为67分钟。参与“微笑生活”干预措施为“微笑生活”从业者提供了:(i)能力(身体和心理方面),(ii)机会(与服务提供者和服务使用者建立沟通方法和关系),以及(iii)通过反思他们实施干预措施的积极和消极经历,与第三部门无家可归者服务机构和服务使用者接触的动力。根据COM-B的每个类别确定了这种接触的促进因素和障碍。促进因素包括:从业者的责任感、反思过去与服务使用者的积极经历和成功故事。障碍包括:资源短缺、过去的负面经历以及“微笑生活”从业者与第三部门工作人员之间的不良关系。

结论

“微笑生活”项目提升了那些跨学科实施“微笑生活”干预措施的从业者的能力,提供了机会并增强了动力,这可以被概念化为“跨越边界”。被发现是跨越边界者的从业者通常对制定策略以克服实施挑战具有积极的心态和主动的态度,通过弥合国民保健服务体系与第三部门之间以及口腔健康与无家可归问题之间的差距,在不同领域开展工作以实现其目标。

相似文献

9

本文引用的文献

4
Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews.健康领域的研究共同设计:综述快速概览。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 11;18(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9.
7
Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups.定性研究。引入焦点小组。
BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299.

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