Process & Outcome Evaluation of a Rural Health Network to Assess Effectiveness

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sarah Mollman, Kelly Boyd, Charlene Berke, Mari Perrenoud, Vonda Reed, Carol Stewart
{"title":"Process & Outcome Evaluation of a Rural Health Network to Assess Effectiveness","authors":"Sarah Mollman,&nbsp;Kelly Boyd,&nbsp;Charlene Berke,&nbsp;Mari Perrenoud,&nbsp;Vonda Reed,&nbsp;Carol Stewart","doi":"10.1111/jep.70249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Rural residents face many health disparities and challenges. Rural health networks form to address the specific needs of a community by bringing together multiple individuals and organisations; however, there is limited literature on the evaluation of these networks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate a network's effectiveness in three areas: (1) capacity to achieve change in palliative care education, (2) key results of collaborative efforts, and (3) extent to which grant activities were implemented.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Grant required evaluation measures were used to answer area one and three: key sector representation, network organisational assessment, external environmental scan, and SWOT analysis. To answer area two, knowledge and commitment to change were evaluated after a palliative care symposium.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The network was proficient or excelling in all 15 areas of a Network Organisational Assessment and represented all 38 key sectors representing the focus of network (palliative care). Through repeated external environment scans and analysis of the strategic plan, the network continually evaluated the landscape in which it operated enabling the network to adapt and capitalise on opportunities. The outcome evaluation of the network's symposium revealed that most participants reported improvement in their ability to impact patient outcomes (59%), overall confidence and performance (65%), and knowledge of palliative care (78%). Nearly all participants reported better communication and collaboration with a multidisciplinary team (96% and 97% respectively) and intent to apply what they learned in their team (97%). Practice changes included commitment to improving their patient education, communication, and teamwork.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The network's evaluation demonstrated its effectiveness in three areas. This article adds to the limited literature on network evaluation by presenting practical tools to grow, engage, and evaluate a network so other rural health networks can replicate these evaluations to assess their effectiveness.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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.70249","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

Rural residents face many health disparities and challenges. Rural health networks form to address the specific needs of a community by bringing together multiple individuals and organisations; however, there is limited literature on the evaluation of these networks.

Objective

To evaluate a network's effectiveness in three areas: (1) capacity to achieve change in palliative care education, (2) key results of collaborative efforts, and (3) extent to which grant activities were implemented.

Methods

Grant required evaluation measures were used to answer area one and three: key sector representation, network organisational assessment, external environmental scan, and SWOT analysis. To answer area two, knowledge and commitment to change were evaluated after a palliative care symposium.

Results

The network was proficient or excelling in all 15 areas of a Network Organisational Assessment and represented all 38 key sectors representing the focus of network (palliative care). Through repeated external environment scans and analysis of the strategic plan, the network continually evaluated the landscape in which it operated enabling the network to adapt and capitalise on opportunities. The outcome evaluation of the network's symposium revealed that most participants reported improvement in their ability to impact patient outcomes (59%), overall confidence and performance (65%), and knowledge of palliative care (78%). Nearly all participants reported better communication and collaboration with a multidisciplinary team (96% and 97% respectively) and intent to apply what they learned in their team (97%). Practice changes included commitment to improving their patient education, communication, and teamwork.

Conclusion

The network's evaluation demonstrated its effectiveness in three areas. This article adds to the limited literature on network evaluation by presenting practical tools to grow, engage, and evaluate a network so other rural health networks can replicate these evaluations to assess their effectiveness.

农村卫生网络有效性评估的过程与结果评价
农村居民面临着许多健康差距和挑战。农村保健网络的形成是为了解决社区的具体需求,将多个个人和组织聚集在一起;然而,对这些网络的评价文献有限。目的评估网络在三个方面的有效性:(1)实现姑息治疗教育变革的能力,(2)合作努力的关键结果,(3)赠款活动的实施程度。方法采用Grant要求的评估方法来回答领域一和领域三:关键部门代表、网络组织评估、外部环境扫描和SWOT分析。为了回答第二个问题,在姑息治疗研讨会后评估了知识和改变的承诺。结果该网络在网络组织评估的所有15个领域均精通或优秀,并代表了代表网络(姑息治疗)重点的所有38个关键部门。通过重复的外部环境扫描和战略计划分析,网络不断评估其运营的景观,使网络能够适应和利用机会。网络研讨会的结果评估显示,大多数参与者报告了他们影响患者结果的能力(59%),整体信心和表现(65%)以及姑息治疗知识(78%)的改善。几乎所有的参与者都报告了与多学科团队更好的沟通和协作(分别为96%和97%),并打算将他们学到的知识应用到他们的团队中(97%)。实践上的改变包括致力于改善患者教育、沟通和团队合作。结论网络评价在三个方面显示了其有效性。本文通过提供实用的工具来发展、参与和评估网络,从而增加了有限的网络评估文献,以便其他农村卫生网络可以复制这些评估以评估其有效性。
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