Marjolein van Rooijen1, Stephanie Lenzen2, Ruth Dalemans2, Anna Beurskens1, Albine Moser1,2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 2. Research Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In implementation science, vast gaps exist between theoretical and practical knowledge. These gaps prevail in the process of getting from problem analysis to selecting implementation strategies while engaging stakeholders including care users. OBJECTIVE: To describe a process of how to get from problem analysis to strategy selection, how to engage stakeholders, and to provide insights into stakeholders' experiences. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The setting was a care organization providing long-term care to people with acquired brain injuries who are communication vulnerable. Fourteen stakeholders (care users, professionals and researchers) participated. Data were collected by a document review, five interviews and one focus group. Inductive content analysis and deductive framework analysis were applied. INTERVENTION: Stakeholder engagement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A three-step process model and stakeholders experiences. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We formulated a three-step process: (a) reaching consensus and prioritizing barriers; (b) categorizing the prioritized barriers and idealization; and (c) composing strategies. Two subthemes continuously played a role in how stakeholders were engaged during the process: communication supportive strategies and continuous contact. The experiences of stakeholder participation resulted in the following themes: stakeholders and their roles, use of co-creation methods and communication supportive strategies, building relationships, stimulus of stakeholders to engage, sharing power, empowerment of stakeholders, feeling a shared responsibility and learning from one another. We conclude that the inclusion of communication-vulnerable care users is possible if meetings are prepared, communication-friendly presentations and reports are used, and relationship building is prioritized.
BACKGROUND: In implementation science, vast gaps exist between theoretical and practical knowledge. These gaps prevail in the process of getting from problem analysis to selecting implementation strategies while engaging stakeholders including care users. OBJECTIVE: To describe a process of how to get from problem analysis to strategy selection, how to engage stakeholders, and to provide insights into stakeholders' experiences. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The setting was a care organization providing long-term care to people with acquired brain injuries who are communication vulnerable. Fourteen stakeholders (care users, professionals and researchers) participated. Data were collected by a document review, five interviews and one focus group. Inductive content analysis and deductive framework analysis were applied. INTERVENTION: Stakeholder engagement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A three-step process model and stakeholders experiences. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We formulated a three-step process: (a) reaching consensus and prioritizing barriers; (b) categorizing the prioritized barriers and idealization; and (c) composing strategies. Two subthemes continuously played a role in how stakeholders were engaged during the process: communication supportive strategies and continuous contact. The experiences of stakeholder participation resulted in the following themes: stakeholders and their roles, use of co-creation methods and communication supportive strategies, building relationships, stimulus of stakeholders to engage, sharing power, empowerment of stakeholders, feeling a shared responsibility and learning from one another. We conclude that the inclusion of communication-vulnerable care users is possible if meetings are prepared, communication-friendly presentations and reports are used, and relationship building is prioritized.
Authors: Steffy E A Stans; Ruth J P Dalemans; Luc P de Witte; Hester W H Smeets; Anna J Beurskens Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: David Beran; Maria Lazo-Porras; Maria Kathia Cardenas; François Chappuis; Albertino Damasceno; Nilambar Jha; Tavares Madede; Sarah Lachat; Silvana Perez Leon; Nathaly Aya Pastrana; Maria Amalia Pesantes; Suman Bahadur Singh; Sanjib Sharma; Claire Somerville; L Suzanne Suggs; J Jaime Miranda Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2018-11-16
Authors: Max Pancer; Melissa Manganaro; Isabella Pace; Patrick Marion; Dany H Gagnon; Marie-Thérèse Laramée; Frédéric Messier; Fatima Amari; Sara Ahmed Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2019-07-26
Authors: Josien G Timmerman; Thijs M Tönis; Marit G H Dekker-van Weering; Martijn M Stuiver; Michel W J M Wouters; Wim H van Harten; Hermie J Hermens; Miriam M R Vollenbroek-Hutten Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 2.655