RESUMEN

PROBLEM: Despite increasing interest in Group Care worldwide, implementation is challenging. BACKGROUND: Group Care is an evidence-based perinatal care model including three core components: health assessment, interactive learning, and community building. It has several advantages for service users and providers compared to individual perinatal care. AIM: We aimed to identify anticipated challenges when implementing Group Care, and to develop a supporting tool based on these challenges. METHODS: Context analyses through Rapid Qualitative Inquiries were conducted in 26 sites in seven countries to gain insight into the anticipated challenges when implementing Group Care. Data triangulation and investigator triangulation were applied. The context analyses generated 330 semi-structured interviews with service users and other stakeholders, 10 focus group discussions, and 56 review meetings with the research teams. FINDINGS: We identified six surface structure anticipated challenges categories (content, materials, facilitators, timing, location, group composition), and five deep structure anticipated challenges categories (health assessment, scheduling Group Care into regular care, enrolment, (possible) partner organisations, financials) occurring in all participating sites, leading to the development of the Anticipated Challenges Framework. CONCLUSION: Completing the Anticipated Challenges Framework raises awareness of anticipated challenges if sustainable Group Care implementation is to succeed and encourages the initiation of a concrete action plan to tackle these challenges. Application of the framework may offer important insights to health systems administrators and other key stakeholders before implementing Group Care. In the medium- and long-term, insights gained may lead to greater possibilities for sustainability and to the most cost-effective approaches for implementing Group Care.

RESUMEN

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter. Methods: We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria. Results: In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services. Conclusion: Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Co-design with consumers and healthcare professionals is widely used in applied health research. While this approach appears to be ethically the right thing to do, a rigorous evaluation of its process and impact is frequently missing. Evaluation of research co-design is important to identify areas of improvement in the methods and processes, as well as to determine whether research co-design leads to better outcomes. We aimed to build on current literature to develop a framework to assist researchers with the evaluation of co-design processes and impacts. METHODS: A multifaceted, iterative approach, including three steps, was undertaken to develop a Co-design Evaluation Framework: 1) A systematic overview of reviews; 2) Stakeholder panel meetings to discuss and debate findings from the overview of reviews and 3) Consensus meeting with stakeholder panel. The systematic overview of reviews included relevant papers published between 2000 and 2022. OVID (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO), EBSCOhost (Cinahl) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched for papers that reported co-design evaluation or outcomes in health research. Extracted data was inductively analysed and evaluation themes were identified. Review findings were presented to a stakeholder panel, including consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers, to interpret and critique. A consensus meeting, including a nominal group technique, was applied to agree upon the Co-design Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: A total of 51 reviews were included in the systematic overview of reviews. Fifteen evaluation themes were identified and grouped into the following seven clusters: People (within co-design group), group processes, research processes, co-design context, people (outside co-design group), system and sustainment. If evaluation methods were mentioned, they mainly included qualitative data, informal consumer feedback and researchers' reflections. The Co-Design Evaluation Framework used a tree metaphor to represent the processes and people in the co-design group (below-ground), underpinning system- and people-level outcomes beyond the co-design group (above-ground). To evaluate research co-design, researchers may wish to consider any or all components in the tree. CONCLUSIONS: The Co-Design Evaluation Framework has been collaboratively developed with various stakeholders to be used prospectively (planning for evaluation), concurrently (making adjustments during the co-design process) and retrospectively (reviewing past co-design efforts to inform future activities).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Involving the public in evidence synthesis research is challenging due to the highly analytic nature of the projects, so it is important that involvement processes are documented, reflected upon, and shared to devise best practices. There is a literature gap on the involvement of the public in individual participant data meta-analyses, particularly in public health projects. We aimed to document and reflect on our collective experiences of involving and being involved as public stakeholders at all stages of a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis project. METHODS: We formed a stakeholder group made of four members of the public at the beginning of our evidence synthesis project comprising a systematic review, an aggregate data meta-analysis, and an individual participant data meta-analysis of mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in non-clinical adults. Following each group meeting, members and participating researchers completed written reflections; one group member collected and collated these. At the end of the project, a reflective writing workshop was held before all members completed their final reflections. Everyone completed an adapted, open-ended questionnaire which asked about what did and did not work well, the overall experience, what could be improved, and the felt impact the stakeholder group had on the research. RESULTS: Overall, the stakeholders and researchers reported a positive experience of working together. Positives from the stakeholders' point of view included learning new skills, experiencing research, and making new friends. For the researchers, stakeholders helped them focus on what matters to the public and were reinvigorating research partners. The challenges stakeholders experienced included having long gaps between meetings and feeling overwhelmed. The researchers found it challenging to strike the balance between asking stakeholders to be involved and for them to learn research-related skills without overburdening them and making sure that the learning was engaging. When looking back at their experience, stakeholders described seeing their impact on the project in hindsight but that this was not felt while the project was being carried out. CONCLUSION: Successfully involving the public in complex evidence synthesis projects is possible and valuable from the points of view of the researchers and the stakeholders. However, it requires a significant time, skill, and resource investment that needs to be factored in from project inception. Further guidance and stakeholder training materials would be helpful. Specific suggestions are provided.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Through a national cross-sectional survey, the present study investigated the use and content of injury prevention training (IPT), and associated attitudes and beliefs, involving stakeholders in Danish girls' and women's elite football (U14, U16, U18, and Danish Women's League teams). A total of 168 stakeholders (coaches, physical performance coaches, physiotherapists, medical doctors, and club management) from 18 Danish elite clubs were invited to participate. Of these, 158 were eligible to participate, and 110 participants (69.6% response rate) provided 191 valid survey responses, as some provided more than one response due to multiple affiliations within the same club. The use of IPT ranged from 91.1% to 100% across team levels, with approximately 50% reporting up to 1-2 h/week. Interestingly, only 52.9%-72.7% of the responses indicated use of an evidence-based IPT program, with lowest adoption at the U14 and Danish Women's League teams. The FIFA 11+ was the most used evidence-based IPT program. The majority of the participants (>72%) had positive perceptions regarding IPT impact on injury reduction. These findings indicate that, while IPT is broadly used across Danish girls' and women's elite football teams, the implementation of evidence-based IPT programs varies, with lower adoption of these programs among the youngest and senior elite teams. Hence, there is a need to enhance integration of IPT programs proven effective in girls' and women's elite football. Notably, stakeholders expressed positive perceptions regarding the impact of IPT on injury reduction, which provides valuable support for future efforts to strengthen IPT in football practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although eMental health interventions are a viable solution to address disparities in access to mental healthcare and increase its efficiency, they still face challenges of implementation. Literature highlights numerous barriers such as diffusion of responsibility and unclear expectations of what implementation entails might hinder this process. While research mostly focuses on analyzing these barriers, there is an urgent need to increase uptake in practice. In turn, commercial companies focus mostly on increasing uptake, while overlooking research outputs. To bridge the gap between research and practice, attention to how implementation occurs in practice is required. This study investigates "Make it Happen" (MiH), the implementation model developed by the eMental Health company Minddistrict, aiming to gain more insight into operationalizing implementation frameworks by 1) describing MiH and its conceptual underpinnings, and 2) gaining lessons learned from the development of MiH. Ultimately, this work aims at improving existing scientific frameworks by extending them with knowledge from practice. METHODS: First, individual interviews and focus groups with Minddistrict implementation managers were performed. Second, individual interviews with project leads in mental healthcare organizations that were involved in the implementation of Minddistrict were conducted. Within Minddistrict, 7 implementation managers and account managers were involved, in addition to 11 project leads from mental healthcare organizations. Data were elaborated with thematic analysis. RESULTS: A comprehensive description of MiH and its 5 main phases was achieved. During the 1) Onboarding phase, implementing organizations are guided by Minddistrict to build a team responsible for implementation, which then 2) designs patient and client journeys, 3) builds, tailors and configures their offer, 4) trains key-users and, 5) evaluates the success of implementation. All participants had extensive and aligned definitions and articulated expectations on implementation. Points of improvement for the model such as role ambiguity and excessive workload were identified. As strengths, internal motivation and good relationships with the provider were valued. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the importance of clear role division and stakeholder engagement in implementation processes, and suggest that a strong collaboration between companies and academia could optimize implementation efforts and ensure a better fit between humans, context, and technologies.

RESUMEN

Background: The COVID pandemic prompted an increase in the use of digital clinical consultations (telephone or video calls) within midwifery and nursing care. This paper reports on a realist review project related to maternity care that seeks to illuminate for whom such consultations can safely and acceptably be used, how, for what purposes and in what contexts. Aims: This paper addresses the first phase of a realist enquiry - initial programme theory development - focusing particularly on the role of stakeholder involvement (including digital transformation leaders, midwives, obstetricians, service users and community organisations). Methods: Three sub-stages of initial programme theory development are described highlighting the contribution of stakeholder groups to each stage: (i) consultation to focus the review question, (ii) focused searching and (iii) further consultation. Results: Realist literature searching strategies yielded limited theory-rich evidence on digital consultations. Stakeholders provided essential additional contributions resulting in the development of 13 initial programme theories and a conceptual framework. Conclusions: More research on the implementation of virtual midwifery/nursing consultations is needed. Nursing/midwifery digital researchers should involve stakeholders to help shape research priorities, deepen contextual understanding and sense-check emerging findings.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The European Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA R), effective since January 2022, aims to harmonize and improve the efficiency of common HTA across Member States (MS), with a phased implementation from January 2025. At "midterms" of the preparation phase for the implementation of the Regulation our aim was to identify and prioritize tangible action points to move forward. METHODS: During the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), participants from different nationalities and stakeholder backgrounds discussed readiness and remaining challenges for the Regulation's implementation and identified and prioritized action points. For this purpose, participants were assigned to four working groups: (i) Health Policy Challenges, (ii) Stakeholder Readiness, (iii) Approach to Uncertainty and (iv) Challenges regarding Methodology. Top four action points for each working group were identified and subsequently ranked by all participants during the final plenary session. RESULTS: Overall "readiness" for the Regulation was perceived as neutral. Prioritized action points included the following: Health Policy, i.e. assess adjustability of MS laws and health policy processes; Stakeholders, i.e. capacity building; Uncertainty, i.e. implement HTA guidelines as living documents; Methodology, i.e. clarify the Population, Intervention, Comparator(s), Outcomes (PICO) identification process. CONCLUSIONS: At "midterms" of the preparation phase, the focus for the months to come is on executing the tangible action points identified at EAA's Spring Convention. All action points centre around three overarching themes: harmonization and standardization, capacity building and collaboration, uncertainty management and robust data. These themes will ultimately determine the success of the EU HTA R in the long run.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Impactful, evidence-based solutions in surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation for stroke survivors are required to address the high global burden of stroke. Patient and public involvement (PPI), where patients, their families, and the public are actively involved as research partners, enhances the relevance, credibility, and impact of stroke-related research. AIMS: This scoping review, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines, aims to identify and summarize how PPI is currently implemented and reported in empirical stroke research using a participatory approach. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsynchINFO, and Cochrane electronic databases, supplemented by gray literature searches. Empirical stroke research articles in the English language, published from 2014 up to 2023, and documenting PPI activity were included. Of the 18,143 original articles identified, 2824 full-text manuscripts matching from this time window were screened. Only 2% (n = 72) of these directly reported embedded PPI activity in empirical research. The majority were qualitative in design (60%) and conducted in high-income countries (96%). Only one included study originated from a developing country, where the burden of stroke is highest. Most studies (94%) provided some information about the activities carried out with their PPI partners, mainly centered on the study design (57%) and management (64%), with only 4% of studies integrating PPI across all research cycle phases from funding application to dissemination. When studies were examined for compliance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) short-form checklist, only 11% of included studies were 100% compliant. Twenty-one studies (29%) reported barriers and facilitators to including PPI in stroke research. Organization, authentic partnership, and experienced PPI representatives were common facilitators and identified barriers reflected concerns around adequate funding, time required, and diversity in perspectives. A positive reporting bias for PPI impact was observed, summarized as keeping the patient perspective central to the research process, improved care of study participants, validation of study findings, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex research concepts. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is underutilized and inconsistently reported in current empirical stroke research. PPI must become more widely adopted, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Consensus-driven standards for inclusion of PPI by funding organizations and publishers are required to support its widespread adoption.

RESUMEN

Background: In recent years, involvement of healthcare stakeholders in health technology assessment (HTA) has been discussed as helping the inclusion of social values in the decision-making process. The aim of our research was to identify and compare details from Kazakhstan, Poland and Bulgaria on their stakeholders' involvement in the HTA process. Information was sought on their identification, responsibilities, and regulation. Methods: We conducted a survey of seven types of stakeholders in the healthcare systems of Kazakhstan, Poland, and Bulgaria. They included patients and the public, providers, purchasers, payers, policy makers, product makers, and principal investigators. They were questioned on their involvement in the HTA process, and on the objectives of their participation. Results: Levels of involvement of different kinds of stakeholder varied between countries, reflecting political and administrative developments. There was full or partial agreement on the objectives of stakeholder participation. All respondents agreed that representatives of the ministry of health should be involved in selection of stakeholders for HTA. Conclusion: Progress has been made in the involvement of stakeholders, with interest in further development in all three countries.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Often, homecare services are task-focused rather than person-based and fragmented instead of integrated. Consequently, several stakeholders have requested a transformation of the service ecosystem for senior citizens living at home. This transformation may be facilitated by an idealized design approach. However, few studies have applied such an approach. Moreover, previous research did not assess the ways in which the existing homecare services correspond with the preferred service ecosystem for senior citizens living at home. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of how the existing homecare services correspond with the preferred service ecosystem for senior citizens living at home, according to different stakeholders. Methods: Four stakeholder groups (n = 57) from a Norwegian municipality participated in an interview study (2019-2020): senior citizens, carers, healthcare professionals and managers. A directed qualitative content analysis was applied, guided by a four-category framework for the preferred service ecosystem. Results: All stakeholder groups highlighted several limitations that hindered continuity of the services. There was also agreement on deficiencies in professionals' competence, yet professionals themselves did not focus on this as a significant aspect. Managers emphasised the importance of professionals' reablement competence, which was also considered to be deficient in the current homecare services. Contrary to the other stakeholder groups, most senior citizens seemed satisfied with the practical and social support they received. Together with carers, they also explained why they thought some professionals lack compassion. Their dependency on professionals may limit them in sharing honestly their opinions and preferences during care provision. Involvement of senior citizens in improvement of the current services was limited. Insufficient time and resources, as well as a complex organisation impacted the existing homecare services, and therefore served as barriers to the preferred service ecosystem. Discussion: In this study there were different degrees of correspondence between the existing homecare services and the preferred service ecosystem according to four stakeholder groups. To develop the preferred service ecosystem, aspects such as predictability, adaptivity, and relationships are key, as well as continuous involvement of senior citizens and other stakeholders. The four-category framework applied in this study served as a tool to assess the existing homecare services.

RESUMEN

This study focuses on the Skalicka Waterwork (SWW), a largely debated and media-covered water-related/flood-protection project in the Czech Republic. Relying primarily on stakeholder interviews, we traced back and reconstructed the project's development, including its key tipping points reflecting the changing societal preferences for particular measures, yet also the involvement of individual actors/stakeholders, and their differing views. The case eventually crystallized into the "dam versus polder" dispute; concerned by the repercussions for the local landscape, a joint initiative of NGOs, local activists, and politicians not only opposed the dam variant proposed by the state river basin administration but also succeeded in pushing through the alternative scheme of side dry polder. While in many ways specific (e.g. not entailing local resistance), the case exemplifies recent shifts (and respective struggles) within flood risk management, including the increasing importance attributed to complex, catchment-wide perspectives, joint local and scientific knowledge, participatory decision-making processes, or implementation of nature-based and hybrid solutions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki is in the process of being revised. The following amendments are recommended to be incorporated in pursuit of the common goal of promoting health for all. 1. Data-driven research that facilitates broad informed consent and dynamic consent, assuring participant's rights, and the sharing of individual participant data (IPD) and research results to promote open science and generate social value. 2. Risk minimisation in a placebo-controlled study and post-trial access to the best-proven interventions for all who need them. 3. A future-oriented research framework for co-creation with all the relevant stakeholders.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement in evaluation of medical devices is crucial for aligning devices with stakeholders' views, needs, and values. Methods for these engagements have however not been compared to analyse their relative merits for medical device evaluation. Therefore, we systematically compared these three methods in terms of themes, interaction, and time-investment. METHODS: We compared focus groups, interviews, and an online survey in a case-study on minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery for patients with intracerebral haemorrhage. The focus groups and interviews featured two rounds, one explorative focussing on individual perspectives, and one interactive focussing on the exchange of perspectives between participants. The comparison between methods was made in terms of number and content of themes, how participants interact, and hours invested by all researchers. RESULTS: The focus groups generated 34 themes, the interviews 58, and the survey 42. Various improvements for the assessment of the surgical procedure were only discussed in the interviews. In focus groups, participants were inclined to emphasise agreement and support, whereas the interviews consisted of questions and answers. The total time investment for researchers of focus groups was 95 h, of interviews 315 h, and survey 81 h. CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of medical device evaluation, interviews appeared to be the most appropriate method for understanding stakeholder views since they provide a scope and depth of information that is not generated by other methods. Focus groups were useful to rapidly bring views together. Surveys enabled a quick exploration. Researchers should account for these methodological differences and select the method that is suitable for their research aim.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to gain knowledge about how external inspections following serious incidents are played out in a Norwegian hospital context from the perspective of the inspectors, and whether stakeholders' views are involved in the inspection. METHODS: Based on a qualitative mixed methods design, 10 government bureaucrats and inspectors situated at the National Board of Health Supervision and three County Governors in Norway, were strategically recruited, and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Key official government documents were selected, collected, and thematically analyzed along with the interview data. RESULTS: Our findings overall demonstrate two overarching themes: Theme (1) Perspectives on different external inspection approaches of responding and involving stakeholders in external inspection following serious incidents, Theme (2) Inspectors' internal work practices versus external expectations. Documents and all participants reported a development towards new approaches in external inspection, with more policies and regulatory attention to sensible involvement of stakeholders. Involvement and interaction with patients and informal caregivers could potentially inform the case complexity and the inspector's decision-making process. However, stakeholder involvement was sometimes complex and challenging due to e.g., difficult communication and interaction with patients and/or informal caregivers, due to resource demands and/or the inspector's lack of experience and/or relevant competence, different perceptions of the principle of sound professional practice, quality, and safety. The inspectors considered balancing the formal objectives and expectations, with the expectations of the public and different stakeholders (i.e. hospitals, patients and/or informal caregivers) a challenging part of their job. This balance was seen as an important part of the continuous development of ensuring public trust and legitimacy in external inspection processes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study suggests that the regulatory system of external inspection and its available approaches of responding to a serious incident in the Norwegian setting is currently not designed to accommodate the complexity of needs from stakeholders at the levels of hospital organizations, patients, and informal caregivers altogether. Further studies should direct attention to how the wider system of accountability structures may support the internal work practices in the regulatory system, to better algin its formal objectives with expectations of the public.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Our objective is to implement a single-case experimental design (SCED) infrastructure in combination with experience-sampling methods (ESM) into the standard diagnostic procedure of a German outpatient research and training clinic. Building on the idea of routine outcome monitoring, the SCED infrastructure introduces intensive longitudinal data collection, individual effectiveness measures, and the opportunity for systematic manipulation to push personalization efforts further. It aims to empower psychotherapists and patients to evaluate their own treatment (idiographic perspective) and to enable researchers to analyze open questions of personalized psychotherapy (nomothetic perspective). Organized around the principles of agile research, we plan to develop, implement, and evaluate the SCED infrastructure in six successive studies with continuous stakeholder involvement: In the project development phase, the business model for the SCED infrastructure is developed that describes its vision in consideration of the context (Study 1). Also, the infrastructure's prototype is specified, encompassing the SCED procedure, ESM protocol, and ESM survey (Study 2 and 3). During the optimization phase, feasibility and acceptability are tested and the infrastructure is adapted accordingly (Study 4). The evaluation phase includes a pilot implementation study to assess implementation outcomes (Study 5), followed by actual implementation using a within-institution A-B design (Study 6). The sustainability phase involves continuous monitoring and improvement. We discuss to what extent the generated data could be used to address current questions of personalized psychotherapy research. Anticipated barriers and limitations during the implementation processes are outlined.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Resilience in healthcare is the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes to maintain high-quality care across system levels. While healthcare system stakeholders such as patients, informal carers, healthcare professionals and service managers have all come to be acknowledged as important co-creators of resilient healthcare, our knowledge and understanding of who, how, and in which contexts different stakeholders come to facilitate and support resilience is still lacking. This study addresses gaps in the research by conducting a stakeholder analysis to identify and categorise the stakeholders that are key to facilitating and sustaining resilience in healthcare, and to investigate stakeholder relationships relevant for the enactment of resilient healthcare systems. METHODS: The stakeholder analysis was conducted using a sample of 19 empirical research projects. A narrative summary was written for 14 of the projects, based on publicly available material. In addition, 16 individual interviews were undertaken with researchers from the same sample of 19 projects. The 16 interview transcripts and 14 narratives made up the data material of the study. Application of stakeholder analysis methods was done in three steps: a) identification of stakeholders; b) differentiation and categorisation of stakeholders using an interest/influence grid; and c) investigation and mapping of stakeholder relationships using an actor-linkage matrix. RESULTS: Identified stakeholders were Patients, Family Carers, Healthcare Professionals, Ward/Unit Managers, Service or Case Managers, Regulatory Investigators, Policy Makers, and Other Service Providers. All identified stakeholders were categorised as either 'Subjects', 'Players', or 'Context Setters' according to their level of interest in and influence on resilient healthcare. Stakeholder relationships were mapped according to the degree and type of contact between the various groups of stakeholders involved in facilitating resilient healthcare, ranging from 'Not linked' to 'Fully linked'. CONCLUSION: Family carers and healthcare professionals were found to be the most active groups of stakeholders in the enactment of healthcare system resilience. Patients, managers, and policy makers also contribute to resilience to various degrees. Relationships between stakeholder groups are largely characterised by communication and coordination, in addition to formal collaborations where diverse actors work together to achieve common goals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: AI-driven clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) hold promise for multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). This study aimed to uncover the hurdles and aids in implementing CDSSs during breast cancer MDTMs. METHODS: Twenty-four core team members from three hospitals engaged in semi-structured interviews, revealing a collective interest in experiencing CDSS workflows in clinical practice. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed anonymously. A standardized approach, 'the framework method', was used to create an analytical framework for data analysis, which was performed by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Positive aspects included improved data visualization, time-saving features, automated trial matching, and enhanced documentation transparency. However, challenges emerged, primarily concerning data connectivity, guideline updates, the accuracy of AI-driven suggestions, and the risk of losing human involvement in decision making. Despite the complexities involved in CDSS development and integration, clinicians demonstrated enthusiasm to explore its potential benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the multifaceted nature of this challenge, insights into the barriers and facilitators identified in this study offer a potential roadmap for smoother future implementations. Understanding these factors could pave the way for more effective utilization of CDSSs in breast cancer MDTMs, enhancing patient care through informed decision making.

RESUMEN

Honey bee colonies have great societal and economic importance. The main challenge that beekeepers face is keeping bee colonies healthy under ever-changing environmental conditions. In the past two decades, beekeepers that manage colonies of Western honey bees (Apis mellifera) have become increasingly concerned by the presence of parasites and pathogens affecting the bees, the reduction in pollen and nectar availability, and the colonies' exposure to pesticides, among others. Hence, beekeepers need to know the health condition of their colonies and how to keep them alive and thriving, which creates a need for a new holistic data collection method to harmonize the flow of information from various sources that can be linked at the colony level for different health determinants, such as bee colony, environmental, socioeconomic, and genetic statuses. For this purpose, we have developed and implemented the B-GOOD (Giving Beekeeping Guidance by computational-assisted Decision Making) project as a case study to categorize the colony's health condition and find a Health Status Index (HSI). Using a 3-tier setup guided by work plans and standardized protocols, we have collected data from inside the colonies (amount of brood, disease load, honey harvest, etc.) and from their environment (floral resource availability). Most of the project's data was automatically collected by the BEEP Base Sensor System. This continuous stream of data served as the basis to determine and validate an algorithm to calculate the HSI using machine learning. In this article, we share our insights on this holistic methodology and also highlight the importance of using a standardized data language to increase the compatibility between different current and future studies. We argue that the combined management of big data will be an essential building block in the development of targeted guidance for beekeepers and for the future of sustainable beekeeping.