Suppr超能文献

实施的组织准备情况:一项用于解释调查回复的定性评估。

Organizational readiness for implementation: a qualitative assessment to explain survey responses.

作者信息

McClam Maria, Workman Lauren, Walker Timothy J, Dias Emanuelle M, Craig Derek W, Padilla Joe R, Lamont Andrea E, Wandersman Abraham, Fernandez Maria E

机构信息

Center for Applied Research and Evaluation, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.

Department of Health Services, Policy, and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-12149-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

One factor considered essential to successful implementation is organizational readiness. The purpose of this study was to explore ways to improve the measurement of organizational readiness, and in particular to refine a preliminary measure based on the Readiness = Motivation x innovation Specific Capacity x General Capacity (R = MC2) heuristic. We assessed the experiences of staff in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) designed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) who previously completed the survey and aimed to understand their perspectives on why our data were positively skewed.

METHODS

We conducted a series of qualitative interviews with FQHC employees who had previously completed the readiness survey and/or been involved with the distribution of the readiness survey. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, transcribed. Data was analyzed using an inductive approach to identify key emergent themes.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed numerous contributors to high organizational readiness assessment scores including concerns about confidentiality, social desirability bias, knowledge of respondents about the survey content, and the survey format. Specific to the survey format, we found that survey length and response scaling likely impacted scores and the overall survey experience. Lastly, some participants shared that the tendency for high scores may reflect actual perceptions because FQHC staff are passionate, work well in teams, and typically have already worked hard to improve CRCS rates through evidence-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

Study findings reinforce the importance of collaborative and community-engaged survey design and the need to address the common challenges dissemination and implementation surveys may be vulnerable to. Lessons learned can be applied to other measurement work and surveys conducted across public health research. The findings will inform continued organizational readiness measure development and have implications for measurement of other factors influencing implementation.

摘要

背景

成功实施的一个关键因素是组织准备情况。本研究的目的是探索改进组织准备情况测量的方法,特别是完善基于“准备情况 = 动机×创新特定能力×一般能力(R = MC²)”启发式方法的初步测量方法。我们评估了联邦合格健康中心(FQHC)员工在实施旨在增加结直肠癌筛查(CRCS)的循证干预措施(EBI)方面的经验,这些员工此前完成了该调查,旨在了解他们对数据呈正偏态的原因的看法。

方法

我们对之前完成准备情况调查和/或参与准备情况调查分发的FQHC员工进行了一系列定性访谈。访谈通过Zoom进行,录音并转录。使用归纳法分析数据以确定关键的新出现主题。

结果

分析揭示了导致组织准备情况评估得分高的众多因素,包括对保密性的担忧、社会期望偏差、受访者对调查内容的了解以及调查格式。具体到调查格式,我们发现调查长度和回答量表可能影响得分和整体调查体验。最后,一些参与者表示高分趋势可能反映了实际看法,因为FQHC员工充满热情,团队合作良好,并且通常已经通过循证干预措施努力提高CRCS率。

结论

研究结果强化了协作式和社区参与式调查设计的重要性,以及应对传播和实施调查可能易受影响的常见挑战的必要性。吸取的经验教训可应用于其他测量工作以及公共卫生研究中的其他调查。这些发现将为持续的组织准备情况测量发展提供信息,并对影响实施的其他因素的测量产生影响。

相似文献

1
Organizational readiness for implementation: a qualitative assessment to explain survey responses.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-12149-8.
2
Factors that influence participation in physical activity for people with bipolar disorder: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 4;6(6):CD013557. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013557.pub2.
3
Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Dec 12;12(12):CD013302. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013302.pub2.
4
Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, detection, and management of postpartum haemorrhage: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 27;11(11):CD013795. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013795.pub2.
5
Can We Enhance Shared Decision-making for Periacetabular Osteotomy Surgery? A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Jan 1;483(1):120-136. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003198. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
8
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
10
Community views on mass drug administration for soil-transmitted helminths: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 20;6:CD015794. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015794.pub2.

本文引用的文献

2
Examining readiness for implementing practice changes in federally qualified health centers: A rapid qualitative study.
J Community Psychol. 2023 Sep;51(7):2724-2740. doi: 10.1002/jcop.23041. Epub 2023 Apr 6.
3
Using cognitive interviews to improve a measure of organizational readiness for implementation.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jan 27;23(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-09005-y.
5
Geographic access to federally qualified health centers before and after the affordable care act.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Mar 23;22(1):385. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07685-0.
7
When national drug surveys "take too long": An examination of who is at risk for survey fatigue.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021 Aug 1;225:108769. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108769. Epub 2021 May 21.
8
R = MC readiness building process: A practical approach to support implementation in local, state, and national settings.
J Community Psychol. 2021 Jul;49(5):1228-1248. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22531. Epub 2021 Mar 28.
9
Examining What We Know in Relation to How We Know It: A Team-Based Reflexivity Model for Rapid Qualitative Health Research.
Qual Health Res. 2021 Jun;31(7):1358-1370. doi: 10.1177/1049732321998062. Epub 2021 Mar 20.
10
Revisiting time to translation: implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in cancer control.
Cancer Causes Control. 2021 Mar;32(3):221-230. doi: 10.1007/s10552-020-01376-z. Epub 2021 Jan 4.

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