Andrew M Briggs1, Joanne E Jordan2, Matthew Jennings3, Robyn Speerin4, Peter Bragge5, Jason Chua6, Anthony D Woolf7, Helen Slater1. 1. Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 2. HealthSense (Aust) Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. New South Wales Agency for Clinical Innovation, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia, and Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 4. New South Wales Agency for Clinical Innovation, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia. 5. BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, and Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand. 7. Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a globally informed framework to evaluate readiness for implementation and success after implementation of musculoskeletal models of care (MOCs). METHODS: Three phases were undertaken: 1) a qualitative study with 27 Australian subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop a draft framework; 2) an eDelphi study with an international panel of 93 SMEs across 30 nations to evaluate face validity, and refine and establish consensus on the framework components; and 3) translation of the framework into a user-focused resource and evaluation of its acceptability with the eDelphi panel. RESULTS: A comprehensive evaluation framework was developed for judging the readiness and success of musculoskeletal MOCs. The framework consists of 9 domains, with each domain containing a number of themes underpinned by detailed elements. In the first Delphi round, scores of "partly agree" or "completely agree" with the draft framework ranged 96.7%-100%. In the second round, "essential" scores ranged 58.6%-98.9%, resulting in 14 of 34 themes being classified as essential. SMEs strongly agreed or agreed that the final framework was useful (98.8%), usable (95.1%), credible (100%) and appealing (93.9%). Overall, 96.3% strongly supported or supported the final structure of the framework as it was presented, while 100%, 96.3%, and 100% strongly supported or supported the content within the readiness, initiating implementation, and success streams, respectively. CONCLUSION: An empirically derived framework to evaluate the readiness and success of musculoskeletal MOCs was strongly supported by an international panel of SMEs. The framework provides an important internationally applicable benchmark for the development, implementation, and evaluation of musculoskeletal MOCs.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a globally informed framework to evaluate readiness for implementation and success after implementation of musculoskeletal models of care (MOCs). METHODS: Three phases were undertaken: 1) a qualitative study with 27 Australian subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop a draft framework; 2) an eDelphi study with an international panel of 93 SMEs across 30 nations to evaluate face validity, and refine and establish consensus on the framework components; and 3) translation of the framework into a user-focused resource and evaluation of its acceptability with the eDelphi panel. RESULTS: A comprehensive evaluation framework was developed for judging the readiness and success of musculoskeletal MOCs. The framework consists of 9 domains, with each domain containing a number of themes underpinned by detailed elements. In the first Delphi round, scores of "partly agree" or "completely agree" with the draft framework ranged 96.7%-100%. In the second round, "essential" scores ranged 58.6%-98.9%, resulting in 14 of 34 themes being classified as essential. SMEs strongly agreed or agreed that the final framework was useful (98.8%), usable (95.1%), credible (100%) and appealing (93.9%). Overall, 96.3% strongly supported or supported the final structure of the framework as it was presented, while 100%, 96.3%, and 100% strongly supported or supported the content within the readiness, initiating implementation, and success streams, respectively. CONCLUSION: An empirically derived framework to evaluate the readiness and success of musculoskeletal MOCs was strongly supported by an international panel of SMEs. The framework provides an important internationally applicable benchmark for the development, implementation, and evaluation of musculoskeletal MOCs.
Authors: Helen Slater; Joanne E Jordan; Peter B O'Sullivan; Robert Schütze; Roger Goucke; Jason Chua; Allyson Browne; Ben Horgan; Simone De Morgan; Andrew M Briggs Journal: Pain Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Helen Slater; Jared M Campbell; Jennifer N Stinson; Megan M Burley; Andrew M Briggs Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew M Briggs; Pim P Valentijn; Jotheeswaran A Thiyagarajan; Islene Araujo de Carvalho Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Robyn Speerin; Christopher Needs; Jason Chua; Linda J Woodhouse; Margareta Nordin; Rhona McGlasson; Andrew M Briggs Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 4.098
Authors: Andrew M Briggs; Jennifer G Persaud; Marie L Deverell; Samantha Bunzli; Brigitte Tampin; Yuka Sumi; Olav Amundsen; Elizabeth Mg Houlding; Anontella Cardone; Thora Hugosdottir; Sophia Rogers; Miklós Pozsgai; Helen Slater Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2019-09-11
Authors: Andrew M Briggs; Carolyn J Page; Bridget R Shaw; Andrea Bendrups; Kathleen Philip; Belinda Cary; Peter F Choong Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2018-11
Authors: Karin Schröder; Birgitta Öberg; Paul Enthoven; Alice Kongsted; Allan Abbott Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.655