Using Forum Theatre to mobilise knowledge and improve NHS care: the Enhancing Post-injury Psychological Intervention and Care (EPPIC) study

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
K. Beckett, T. Deave, T. McBride, A. May, J. Gabbay, Urszula Kapoulas, Adele Long, George A. Warburton, C. Wogan, L. Cox, Julian Thompson, Frank Spencer, D. Kendrick
{"title":"Using Forum Theatre to mobilise knowledge and improve NHS care: the Enhancing Post-injury Psychological Intervention and Care (EPPIC) study","authors":"K. Beckett, T. Deave, T. McBride, A. May, J. Gabbay, Urszula Kapoulas, Adele Long, George A. Warburton, C. Wogan, L. Cox, Julian Thompson, Frank Spencer, D. Kendrick","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420902769508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Evidence regarding the impact of psychological problems on recovery from injury has limited influence on practice. Mindlines show effective practice requires diverse knowledge which is generally socially transmitted.Aims and objectives: Develop and test a method blending patient, practitioner, and research evidence and using Forum Theatre to enable key stakeholders to interact with it. Assess this methods; impact on contributing individuals/groups; on behaviour, practice, and research; mechanisms enabling these changes to occur.Methods: Stage-1: captured patient (n=53), practitioner (n=62), and research/expert (n=3) evidence using interviews, focus groups, literature review; combined these strands using framework analysis and conveyed them in a play. Stage-2: patients (n=32), carers (n=3), practitioners (n=31), and researchers (n=16) attended Forum Theatre workshops where they shared experiences, watched the play, re-enacted elements, and co-produced service improvements. Stage-3: used the Social Impact Framework to analyse study outcome data and establish what changed, how and why.Findings: This approach enhanced individuals’/group knowledge of post-injury psychopathology, confidence in their knowledge, mutual understanding, creativity, attitudes towards knowledge mobilisation, and research. These cognitive, attitudinal, and relational impacts led to multilevel changes in behaviour, practice, and research. Four key mechanisms enabled this research to occur and create impact: diverse knowledge, drama/storytelling, social interaction, actively altering outcomes.Discussion and conclusions: Discourse about poor uptake of scientific evidence focuses on methods to aid translation and implementation; this study shows how mindlines can reframe this ‘problem’ and inform impactful research.EPPIC demonstrated how productive interaction between diverse stakeholders using creative means bridges gaps between evidence, knowledge, and action.Key messagesImproving healthcare practice by means of research can be problematic.Knowledge translation models often neglect healthcare’s complexity and gaps between evidence, knowledge and action.The mindlines model shows how diverse healthcare knowledge is effectively melded, used, and transmitted.Forum Theatre enables key stakeholders to share and co-create knowledge, enhancing mindlines and hence practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420902769508","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Evidence regarding the impact of psychological problems on recovery from injury has limited influence on practice. Mindlines show effective practice requires diverse knowledge which is generally socially transmitted.Aims and objectives: Develop and test a method blending patient, practitioner, and research evidence and using Forum Theatre to enable key stakeholders to interact with it. Assess this methods; impact on contributing individuals/groups; on behaviour, practice, and research; mechanisms enabling these changes to occur.Methods: Stage-1: captured patient (n=53), practitioner (n=62), and research/expert (n=3) evidence using interviews, focus groups, literature review; combined these strands using framework analysis and conveyed them in a play. Stage-2: patients (n=32), carers (n=3), practitioners (n=31), and researchers (n=16) attended Forum Theatre workshops where they shared experiences, watched the play, re-enacted elements, and co-produced service improvements. Stage-3: used the Social Impact Framework to analyse study outcome data and establish what changed, how and why.Findings: This approach enhanced individuals’/group knowledge of post-injury psychopathology, confidence in their knowledge, mutual understanding, creativity, attitudes towards knowledge mobilisation, and research. These cognitive, attitudinal, and relational impacts led to multilevel changes in behaviour, practice, and research. Four key mechanisms enabled this research to occur and create impact: diverse knowledge, drama/storytelling, social interaction, actively altering outcomes.Discussion and conclusions: Discourse about poor uptake of scientific evidence focuses on methods to aid translation and implementation; this study shows how mindlines can reframe this ‘problem’ and inform impactful research.EPPIC demonstrated how productive interaction between diverse stakeholders using creative means bridges gaps between evidence, knowledge, and action.Key messagesImproving healthcare practice by means of research can be problematic.Knowledge translation models often neglect healthcare’s complexity and gaps between evidence, knowledge and action.The mindlines model shows how diverse healthcare knowledge is effectively melded, used, and transmitted.Forum Theatre enables key stakeholders to share and co-create knowledge, enhancing mindlines and hence practice.
使用论坛剧院调动知识和改善NHS护理:加强损伤后心理干预和护理(EPPIC)研究
背景:关于心理问题对伤病恢复影响的证据对训练的影响有限。思维方式表明,有效的实践需要多样化的知识,而这些知识通常是社会传播的。目的和目标:开发和测试一种方法,将患者、医生和研究证据结合起来,并使用论坛剧院使关键利益相关者能够与之互动。评估这些方法;对作出贡献的个人/群体的影响;关于行为、实践和研究;使这些变化发生的机制。方法:第一阶段:采用访谈、焦点小组、文献回顾等方法,收集患者(53例)、执业医师(62例)和研究/专家(3例)的证据;使用框架分析将这些线索结合起来,并在戏剧中传达出来。第二阶段:患者(n=32)、护理人员(n=3)、从业人员(n=31)和研究人员(n=16)参加了论坛剧院研讨会,在那里他们分享经验,观看戏剧,重新制定元素,并共同制定服务改进。阶段3:使用社会影响框架来分析研究结果数据,并确定变化的内容、方式和原因。研究发现:这种方法增强了个人/群体对损伤后精神病理学的认识,增强了他们对知识的信心,相互理解,创造力,对知识动员和研究的态度。这些认知、态度和关系的影响导致了行为、实践和研究的多层次变化。四个关键机制使这项研究得以发生并产生影响:多样化的知识、戏剧/讲故事、社会互动、积极改变结果。讨论和结论:关于科学证据吸收不良的论述侧重于帮助翻译和实施的方法;这项研究表明,思维方式可以重新定义这个“问题”,并为有影响力的研究提供信息。EPPIC展示了不同利益相关者之间如何利用创造性手段进行富有成效的互动,弥合证据、知识和行动之间的差距。关键信息通过研究改善医疗保健实践可能是有问题的。知识翻译模型往往忽视了医疗保健的复杂性以及证据、知识和行动之间的差距。思维线模型显示了不同的医疗保健知识是如何有效地融合、使用和传播的。论坛剧场使关键利益相关者能够分享和共同创造知识,增强思维,从而促进实践。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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