让卫生系统、服务和消费者代表参与共同设计一个多标准决策框架,以启用超重和肥胖规划和服务。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Laura Thomas, Suzanne Robinson, Sharyn Burns, Helen Mitchell, Andrea Begley
{"title":"让卫生系统、服务和消费者代表参与共同设计一个多标准决策框架,以启用超重和肥胖规划和服务。","authors":"Laura Thomas, Suzanne Robinson, Sharyn Burns, Helen Mitchell, Andrea Begley","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01263-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Obesity is a multi-faceted problem that requires complex health system responses. While no single program or service is sufficient to meet every individual's needs, some criteria that increase the likelihood of program/service quality delivery to produce effective outcomes exist. However, although research on health commissioning is available internationally and is growing within the Australian context, no evidence exists of a multi-criteria decision-making framework to address the complexity required for effective commissioning of overweight and obesity early intervention and weight management programs or services. This study aimed to develop a set of criteria to support effective commissioning in this context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods co-design approach was used to develop a multi-criteria framework. A literature review informed a three-stage co-design consensus-gathering approach. Participants included Western Australian stakeholders from the Western Australian health system, services and consumers, who reviewed, ranked and validated responses and criteria through ongoing discussions. A deliberative forum was held between the two online, modified Delphi surveys to reach a consensus among stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Through the co-design, a total of 63 stakeholders were identified: 24 completed the round 1 Delphi survey assessing 22 proposed criteria, 40 attended the deliberative forum and 30 completed the round 2 Delphi survey. A total of 4 themes arose from the co-design process: (1) reduce duplication, (2) demote criteria, (3) re-organize criteria and (4) simplify language, and 10 criteria were established: safety, collaboration and consultation, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, evidence-based, health service delivery model, sustainability and workforce capacity and competence. The criteria were underpinned by indicators highlighting relevant sub-themes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A multi-criteria framework was developed and its application to the commissioning process will enable the selection of programs and services that will likely have an impact on individuals' use of and satisfaction with programs and services, overweight and obesity-related outcomes and inter-agency collaborations to maximize economic and workforce resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11744878/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engaging health system, service and consumer representatives in the co-design of a multi-criteria decision-making framework for commissioning overweight and obesity programs and services.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Thomas, Suzanne Robinson, Sharyn Burns, Helen Mitchell, Andrea Begley\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01263-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Obesity is a multi-faceted problem that requires complex health system responses. While no single program or service is sufficient to meet every individual's needs, some criteria that increase the likelihood of program/service quality delivery to produce effective outcomes exist. However, although research on health commissioning is available internationally and is growing within the Australian context, no evidence exists of a multi-criteria decision-making framework to address the complexity required for effective commissioning of overweight and obesity early intervention and weight management programs or services. This study aimed to develop a set of criteria to support effective commissioning in this context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods co-design approach was used to develop a multi-criteria framework. A literature review informed a three-stage co-design consensus-gathering approach. Participants included Western Australian stakeholders from the Western Australian health system, services and consumers, who reviewed, ranked and validated responses and criteria through ongoing discussions. A deliberative forum was held between the two online, modified Delphi surveys to reach a consensus among stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Through the co-design, a total of 63 stakeholders were identified: 24 completed the round 1 Delphi survey assessing 22 proposed criteria, 40 attended the deliberative forum and 30 completed the round 2 Delphi survey. A total of 4 themes arose from the co-design process: (1) reduce duplication, (2) demote criteria, (3) re-organize criteria and (4) simplify language, and 10 criteria were established: safety, collaboration and consultation, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, evidence-based, health service delivery model, sustainability and workforce capacity and competence. The criteria were underpinned by indicators highlighting relevant sub-themes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A multi-criteria framework was developed and its application to the commissioning process will enable the selection of programs and services that will likely have an impact on individuals' use of and satisfaction with programs and services, overweight and obesity-related outcomes and inter-agency collaborations to maximize economic and workforce resources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11744878/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01263-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01263-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肥胖是一个多方面的问题,需要复杂的卫生系统应对。虽然没有单一的项目或服务足以满足每个人的需求,但存在一些标准,可以增加项目/服务质量交付产生有效结果的可能性。然而,尽管国际上有关于健康委托的研究,而且在澳大利亚的背景下也在不断发展,但没有证据表明存在一个多标准决策框架来解决有效委托超重和肥胖早期干预和体重管理计划或服务所需的复杂性。本研究旨在制定一套标准,以支持在这种情况下有效的调试。方法:采用混合方法协同设计方法制定多标准框架。一篇文献综述为三阶段共同设计共识收集方法提供了信息。与会者包括来自西澳大利亚州卫生系统、服务和消费者的西澳大利亚利益相关者,他们通过正在进行的讨论审查、排名和验证了响应和标准。双方在网上举行了一个审议论坛,修改了德尔菲调查,以达成利益相关者的共识。结果:通过共同设计,共确定了63个利益相关者:24个完成了第一轮德尔菲调查,评估了22个拟议标准,40个参加了审议论坛,30个完成了第二轮德尔菲调查。共同设计过程共产生了4个主题:(1)减少重复,(2)降低标准,(3)重新组织标准,(4)简化语言,并建立了10个标准:安全性,协作和咨询,适当性,有效性,效率,公平,循证,卫生服务提供模式,可持续性和劳动力能力和能力。这些标准以突出相关分主题的指标为基础。结论:开发了一个多标准框架,并将其应用于调试过程,将使项目和服务的选择可能对个人对项目和服务的使用和满意度、超重和肥胖相关的结果以及机构间合作产生影响,以最大限度地提高经济和劳动力资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Engaging health system, service and consumer representatives in the co-design of a multi-criteria decision-making framework for commissioning overweight and obesity programs and services.

Background: Obesity is a multi-faceted problem that requires complex health system responses. While no single program or service is sufficient to meet every individual's needs, some criteria that increase the likelihood of program/service quality delivery to produce effective outcomes exist. However, although research on health commissioning is available internationally and is growing within the Australian context, no evidence exists of a multi-criteria decision-making framework to address the complexity required for effective commissioning of overweight and obesity early intervention and weight management programs or services. This study aimed to develop a set of criteria to support effective commissioning in this context.

Methods: A mixed-methods co-design approach was used to develop a multi-criteria framework. A literature review informed a three-stage co-design consensus-gathering approach. Participants included Western Australian stakeholders from the Western Australian health system, services and consumers, who reviewed, ranked and validated responses and criteria through ongoing discussions. A deliberative forum was held between the two online, modified Delphi surveys to reach a consensus among stakeholders.

Results: Through the co-design, a total of 63 stakeholders were identified: 24 completed the round 1 Delphi survey assessing 22 proposed criteria, 40 attended the deliberative forum and 30 completed the round 2 Delphi survey. A total of 4 themes arose from the co-design process: (1) reduce duplication, (2) demote criteria, (3) re-organize criteria and (4) simplify language, and 10 criteria were established: safety, collaboration and consultation, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, evidence-based, health service delivery model, sustainability and workforce capacity and competence. The criteria were underpinned by indicators highlighting relevant sub-themes.

Conclusions: A multi-criteria framework was developed and its application to the commissioning process will enable the selection of programs and services that will likely have an impact on individuals' use of and satisfaction with programs and services, overweight and obesity-related outcomes and inter-agency collaborations to maximize economic and workforce resources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
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