Logic modelling as hermeneutic praxis: Bringing knowledge systems into view during comprehensive primary health care planning for homelessness in Australia.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1177/13634593231200129
Kristen Foley, Toby Freeman, Lisa Wood, Joanne Flavel, Yvonne Parry, Fran Baum
{"title":"Logic modelling as hermeneutic praxis: Bringing knowledge systems into view during comprehensive primary health care planning for homelessness in Australia.","authors":"Kristen Foley, Toby Freeman, Lisa Wood, Joanne Flavel, Yvonne Parry, Fran Baum","doi":"10.1177/13634593231200129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Logic modelling is used widely in health promotion planning for complex health and social problems. It is often undertaken collaboratively with stakeholders across sectors that hold and enact different institutional approaches. We use hermeneutic philosophy to explore how knowledge is 'lived' by - and unfolds differently for - cross-sectoral stakeholders during comprehensive primary healthcare service planning. An Organisational Action Research partnership was established with a non-government organisation designing comprehensive primary health care for individuals experiencing homelessness in Adelaide, Australia. Grey literature, stakeholder input, academic feedback, a targeted literature review and evidence synthesis were integrated in iterative cycles to inform and refine the logic model. Diverse knowledge systems are active when cross-sectoral stakeholders collaborate on logic models for comprehensive primary health care planning. Considering logic modelling as a hermeneutic praxis helps to foreground and explore these differences. In our case, divergent ideas emerged in how health/wellbeing and trust were conceptualised; language had different meanings across sectors; and the outcomes and data sought were nuanced for various collaborators. We explicate these methodological insights and also contribute our evidence-informed, collaboratively-derived model for design of a comprehensive primary health care service with populations experiencing homelessness. We outline the value of considering cross-sectoral logic modelling as hermeneutic praxis. Engaging with points of difference in cross-sectoral knowledge systems can strengthen logic modelling processes, partnerships and potential outcomes for complex and comprehensive primary health care services.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593231200129","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Logic modelling is used widely in health promotion planning for complex health and social problems. It is often undertaken collaboratively with stakeholders across sectors that hold and enact different institutional approaches. We use hermeneutic philosophy to explore how knowledge is 'lived' by - and unfolds differently for - cross-sectoral stakeholders during comprehensive primary healthcare service planning. An Organisational Action Research partnership was established with a non-government organisation designing comprehensive primary health care for individuals experiencing homelessness in Adelaide, Australia. Grey literature, stakeholder input, academic feedback, a targeted literature review and evidence synthesis were integrated in iterative cycles to inform and refine the logic model. Diverse knowledge systems are active when cross-sectoral stakeholders collaborate on logic models for comprehensive primary health care planning. Considering logic modelling as a hermeneutic praxis helps to foreground and explore these differences. In our case, divergent ideas emerged in how health/wellbeing and trust were conceptualised; language had different meanings across sectors; and the outcomes and data sought were nuanced for various collaborators. We explicate these methodological insights and also contribute our evidence-informed, collaboratively-derived model for design of a comprehensive primary health care service with populations experiencing homelessness. We outline the value of considering cross-sectoral logic modelling as hermeneutic praxis. Engaging with points of difference in cross-sectoral knowledge systems can strengthen logic modelling processes, partnerships and potential outcomes for complex and comprehensive primary health care services.

作为解释学实践的逻辑建模:在澳大利亚无家可归者的综合初级卫生保健规划中引入知识系统。
逻辑建模广泛用于复杂的健康和社会问题的健康促进规划。它通常与持有和实施不同体制方法的各部门的利益相关者合作进行。我们使用解释学哲学来探索在全面的初级医疗保健服务规划中,跨部门利益相关者如何“生活”知识,并以不同的方式展现知识。与一家非政府组织建立了组织行动研究伙伴关系,为澳大利亚阿德莱德无家可归的个人设计全面的初级医疗保健。灰色文献、利益相关者输入、学术反馈、有针对性的文献综述和证据综合被整合在迭代循环中,以告知和完善逻辑模型。当跨部门利益相关者就综合初级卫生保健规划的逻辑模型进行合作时,多样化的知识体系是活跃的。将逻辑建模视为一种解释学实践有助于展望和探索这些差异。在我们的案例中,健康/幸福和信任的概念出现了不同的想法;不同部门的语言含义不同;对于不同的合作者来说,所寻求的结果和数据是细致入微的。我们阐述了这些方法论见解,并为无家可归人群的综合初级卫生保健服务的设计提供了基于证据的、协作衍生的模型。我们概述了将跨部门逻辑建模视为解释学实践的价值。参与跨部门知识体系中的差异点可以加强复杂和全面的初级卫生保健服务的逻辑建模过程、伙伴关系和潜在成果。
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
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信