Practices and Perceptions of Community Health Centres Professionals Toward Evaluation: A Qualitative Study

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Madeleine Capiau, David Buetti, Jean Macq, Sophie Thunus
{"title":"Practices and Perceptions of Community Health Centres Professionals Toward Evaluation: A Qualitative Study","authors":"Madeleine Capiau,&nbsp;David Buetti,&nbsp;Jean Macq,&nbsp;Sophie Thunus","doi":"10.1111/jep.70179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Evaluation plays a critical role in improving the quality and efficiency of services in multidisciplinary primary care organizations, such as community health centers. Despite growing interest in developing tailored evaluation theories for multidisciplinary primary care non-profit organizations, little is known about how evaluation is practiced and perceived by professionals in community health centers. This paper explores both evaluation practices and professionals' perspectives in Belgian community health centers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 professionals from 12 Belgian community health centers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The results highlight the complementarity of formal and informal evaluation practices in understanding how evaluation is conducted and used in community health centers. The results highlighted how conflicting considerations regarding relevance, utility, and feasibility that arise in formal evaluation practices lead community health centers to informal evaluation practices. Professionals perceive informal evaluation practices as more aligned with the values of community health centers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>These results highlight the need to adopt a hybrid approach to evaluation, which combines formal and informal practices in a complementary rather than opposing manner. Drawing inspiration from care ethics embedded in informal practices could help reimagine formal evaluation practices in a more human-centered and context-sensitive way.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70179","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70179","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objective

Evaluation plays a critical role in improving the quality and efficiency of services in multidisciplinary primary care organizations, such as community health centers. Despite growing interest in developing tailored evaluation theories for multidisciplinary primary care non-profit organizations, little is known about how evaluation is practiced and perceived by professionals in community health centers. This paper explores both evaluation practices and professionals' perspectives in Belgian community health centers.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 professionals from 12 Belgian community health centers.

Results

The results highlight the complementarity of formal and informal evaluation practices in understanding how evaluation is conducted and used in community health centers. The results highlighted how conflicting considerations regarding relevance, utility, and feasibility that arise in formal evaluation practices lead community health centers to informal evaluation practices. Professionals perceive informal evaluation practices as more aligned with the values of community health centers.

Conclusion

These results highlight the need to adopt a hybrid approach to evaluation, which combines formal and informal practices in a complementary rather than opposing manner. Drawing inspiration from care ethics embedded in informal practices could help reimagine formal evaluation practices in a more human-centered and context-sensitive way.

社区卫生中心专业人员对评估的实践与认知:一项质性研究
背景和目的评价在提高社区卫生中心等多学科初级保健组织的服务质量和效率方面发挥着关键作用。尽管人们对多学科初级保健非营利组织发展量身定制的评估理论越来越感兴趣,但人们对社区卫生中心专业人员如何实施和感知评估知之甚少。本文探讨了比利时社区卫生中心的评估实践和专业人士的观点。方法对来自比利时12个社区卫生中心的21名专业人员进行半结构化访谈。结果表明,在了解社区卫生中心如何开展和使用评估方面,正式和非正式评估实践具有互补性。结果强调了在正式评估实践中出现的关于相关性、效用和可行性的冲突考虑如何导致社区卫生中心采用非正式评估实践。专业人士认为非正式的评估实践更符合社区卫生中心的价值观。这些结果突出了采用混合方法进行评估的必要性,即将正式实践和非正式实践相结合,以互补而不是对立的方式进行评估。从非正式实践中嵌入的护理伦理中汲取灵感,有助于以更加以人为本和对环境敏感的方式重新构想正式评估实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信