Literature DB >> 12801399

A structured health needs assessment tool: acceptability and effectiveness for health visiting.

Sarah Cowley1, Anna M Houston.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is, nominally at least, a universal health visiting service in Great Britain, although the frequency of contacts may be severely restricted. Debates about whether home visiting should be universal or selective, therefore, focus on whether health visitors should use professional judgement or structured assessment tools to target attention within their caseload. Research attention has focused mainly on unstructured needs assessments and professional judgment or the development of assessment tools, so that the views of practitioners using structured instruments and their clients are not known.
METHODS: A two-phase qualitative study examined the acceptability and effectiveness of a structured health needs assessment tool (HNAT) implemented in London. Views about the tool were elicited from 30 health visitors through telephone interview, and then 21 assessments were observed and tape-recorded; 19 clients were interviewed after the event. Data were evaluated for adequate coverage of views across the target population and analysed using the framework approach.
FINDINGS: A range of views were expressed, but the HNAT caused anxiety and distress to, particularly, the most vulnerable clients. The structured format of the tool appeared to encourage the health visitors to question instead of listen. It did not help to identify all the needs and intruded into normal practice in an insensitive and unhelpful way. LIMITATIONS: This study investigated only one form of structured HNAT. These are commonly used to prioritize undifferentiated needs of clients who have been offered an unsolicited, health promoting service. Our findings therefore do not apply to validated instruments used for screening or specific diagnostic purposes where a client has requested help with a problem.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the problems in use and potential for harm, this form of structured assessment tool appears unsuitable for routine use to determine the intensity of health visiting contacts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12801399     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02675.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  5 in total

1.  Developing and measuring resilience for population health.

Authors:  Sarah Cowley
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 0.927

2.  Parents' views on how health professionals should work with them now to get the best for their child in the future.

Authors:  Joyce L Marshall; Josephine M Green; Helen Spiby
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Language Translation Apps in Health Care Settings: Expert Opinion.

Authors:  Anita Panayiotou; Anastasia Gardner; Sue Williams; Emiliano Zucchi; Monita Mascitti-Meuter; Anita My Goh; Emily You; Terence Wh Chong; Dina Logiudice; Xiaoping Lin; Betty Haralambous; Frances Batchelor
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 4.773

4.  Negotiating policy in practice: child and family health nurses' approach to the process of postnatal psychosocial assessment.

Authors:  Mellanie Rollans; Virginia Schmied; Lynn Kemp; Tanya Meade
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Digging over that old ground: an Australian perspective of women's experience of psychosocial assessment and depression screening in pregnancy and following birth.

Authors:  Mellanie Rollans; Virginia Schmied; Lynn Kemp; Tanya Meade
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 2.809

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.