[Development of a checklist for the introduction of practical disease prevention and health promotion services: A consensus-building process based on action research].

Abstract

Objectives　This report describes the process of consensus-building with stakeholders involved in the development of a checklist intended for purchasers of disease prevention and health promotion services to determine their quality.Methods　The key stakeholders involved in the checklist development included healthcare providers and developers, purchasers, occupational health and health education or health promotion experts, and a steering committee of researchers. The steering committee collected opinions from the other four groups through interviews, workshops, and questionnaires. They also conducted qualitative analyses, as well as drafted and revised the checklist until a consensus was reached.Results　The following points were extracted from the interviews with the providers and developers: evidence-based services, changes in the randomized controlled trial framework in each field, services rooted in daily life, and discussions concerning the current status and challenges in the healthcare market. The workshops for the purchasers identified eight major aspects related to checklist qualities in the first session (general (layout), general (wording), general (initial setup), target populations, effectiveness and usefulness, safety, sustainability, and personal information and ethics), and three in the second one (management and administration, communication and intersectoral collaboration, and identifying cost-effectiveness). The third session elicited opinions in three categories (management, business, and service effectiveness), while the fourth round discussed three categories (ease of checking, dissemination of checklists, and post-introduction image of services). The opinions expressed in the expert review of occupational health experts were organized into eight categories (operational reality (introduction decision), operational reality (multi-person decision), importance of consistency with business plans, order of checks, suggestions for additional items, presentation of specific examples, definitions and examples, and improvement of options). The comments made by the health education/health promotion experts were organized into three categories (modifications to the checklist, opinions related to participating in the round-table process, and the targeting of potential checklist users). These results were ultimately used to develop the complete checklist.Conclusion　Although the checklist we developed was deemed suitable by the expert panel that participated in this study, its overall validity must be verified using appropriate methodologies in future studies.