Collaborative knowledge sharing in developing and evaluating a training programme for health professionals to implement a social intervention in dementia research

IF 1.2
P. Leung, E. Csipke, Lauren Yates, L. Birt, M. Orrell
{"title":"Collaborative knowledge sharing in developing and evaluating a training programme for health professionals to implement a social intervention in dementia research","authors":"P. Leung, E. Csipke, Lauren Yates, L. Birt, M. Orrell","doi":"10.1108/JMHTEP-10-2020-0071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to explore the utility of collaborative knowledge sharing with stakeholders in developing and evaluating a training programme for health professionals to implement a social intervention in dementia research.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe programme consisted of two phases: 1) development phase guided by the Buckley and Caple’s training model and 2) evaluation phase drew on the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. Survey and interview data was collected from health professionals, people with dementia and their supporters who attended the training programme, delivered or participated in the intervention. Qualitative data was analysed using the framework analysis.\n\n\nFindings\nSeven health professionals participated in consultations in the development phase. In the evaluation phase, 20 intervention facilitators completed the post one-day training evaluations and three took part in the intervention interviews. Eight people with dementia and their supporters from the promoting independence in dementia feasibility study participated in focus groups interviews. The findings show that intervention facilitators were satisfied with the training programme. They learnt new knowledge and skills through an interactive learning environment and demonstrated competencies in motivating people with dementia to engage in the intervention. As a result, this training programme was feasible to train intervention facilitators.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe findings could be implemented in other research training contexts where those delivering research interventions have professional skills but do not have knowledge of the theories and protocols of a research intervention.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study provided insights into the value of collaborative knowledge sharing between academic researchers and multiple non-academic stakeholders that generated knowledge and maximised power through building new capacities and alliances.\n","PeriodicalId":75090,"journal":{"name":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","volume":"516 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JMHTEP-10-2020-0071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore the utility of collaborative knowledge sharing with stakeholders in developing and evaluating a training programme for health professionals to implement a social intervention in dementia research. Design/methodology/approach The programme consisted of two phases: 1) development phase guided by the Buckley and Caple’s training model and 2) evaluation phase drew on the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. Survey and interview data was collected from health professionals, people with dementia and their supporters who attended the training programme, delivered or participated in the intervention. Qualitative data was analysed using the framework analysis. Findings Seven health professionals participated in consultations in the development phase. In the evaluation phase, 20 intervention facilitators completed the post one-day training evaluations and three took part in the intervention interviews. Eight people with dementia and their supporters from the promoting independence in dementia feasibility study participated in focus groups interviews. The findings show that intervention facilitators were satisfied with the training programme. They learnt new knowledge and skills through an interactive learning environment and demonstrated competencies in motivating people with dementia to engage in the intervention. As a result, this training programme was feasible to train intervention facilitators. Practical implications The findings could be implemented in other research training contexts where those delivering research interventions have professional skills but do not have knowledge of the theories and protocols of a research intervention. Originality/value This study provided insights into the value of collaborative knowledge sharing between academic researchers and multiple non-academic stakeholders that generated knowledge and maximised power through building new capacities and alliances.
在制定和评估保健专业人员在痴呆症研究中实施社会干预的培训方案方面的协作知识共享
目的本研究旨在探讨与利益相关者合作知识共享在制定和评估卫生专业人员在痴呆症研究中实施社会干预的培训计划中的效用。设计/方法/方法该项目包括两个阶段:1)开发阶段,以巴克利和凯普尔的培训模型为指导;2)评估阶段,以柯克帕特里克的评估模型为指导。从参加培训方案、提供或参与干预的保健专业人员、痴呆症患者及其支持者那里收集了调查和访谈数据。采用框架分析法对定性数据进行分析。7名卫生专业人员参与了发展阶段的咨询。在评估阶段,20名干预调解员完成了为期一天的培训后评估,3人参加了干预访谈。来自促进痴呆独立性可行性研究的8名痴呆患者及其支持者参加了焦点小组访谈。调查结果显示,干预助理员对培训计划感到满意。他们通过互动式学习环境学习了新的知识和技能,并展示了激励痴呆症患者参与干预的能力。因此,这一培训方案对于培训干预助理员是可行的。实际意义研究结果可以在其他研究培训环境中实施,其中提供研究干预的人员具有专业技能,但不具备研究干预的理论和协议知识。原创性/价值本研究对学术研究人员和多个非学术利益相关者之间的协作知识共享的价值提供了见解,这些利益相关者通过建立新的能力和联盟来产生知识并最大化权力。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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