多方利益相关者对联合制作的看法:利物浦联合PARS项目后的五项关键建议

IF 8 2区 医学 Q1 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
B. Buckley, Jacqueline Newton, Stacey Knox, Brian Noonan, Maurice Smith, P. Watson
{"title":"多方利益相关者对联合制作的看法:利物浦联合PARS项目后的五项关键建议","authors":"B. Buckley, Jacqueline Newton, Stacey Knox, Brian Noonan, Maurice Smith, P. Watson","doi":"10.1080/2159676X.2022.2152085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Discerning the perspectives and working practices of those who deliver and receive a health service makes for a sensible step towards improving it. The Liverpool Co-PARS project was a four-year iterative process in which a physical activity referral scheme for inactive patients with health conditions was developed, refined, and evaluated. The aim of the present study was to explore multidisciplinary stakeholder perspectives of those involved in the co-production of Co-PARS and inform recommendations for future co-production research. We invited 5 stakeholders (service user, exercise referral practitioner, fitness centre manager, general practitioner/public health commissioner, and an academic) to co-author the present paper and provide their reflections of co-production. Four non-academic stakeholders completed a ~ 30-minute phone discussion of their personal reflections of the co-production process, transcribed in real-time by the first author and edited and checked for accuracy by the stakeholder. The fifth, academic author completed their reflections in writing. The multi-stakeholder reflections presented in this paper highlight identified strengths (multidisciplinary perspectives that were listened to and acted upon, co-production that permeated throughout the research project, real-time intervention adaptation) and challenges (homogeneous sample of service users, power imbalances, and a modestly adapted intervention) of co-production. We propose that co-production could be seen as a pro-active tool for the development of health service interventions, by mitigating potential issues encountered during latter implementation phases. We conclude with five key recommendations to facilitate future co-production research.","PeriodicalId":48542,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health","volume":"15 1","pages":"220 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-stakeholder perspectives on co-production: Five key recommendations following the Liverpool Co-PARS project\",\"authors\":\"B. Buckley, Jacqueline Newton, Stacey Knox, Brian Noonan, Maurice Smith, P. Watson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2159676X.2022.2152085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Discerning the perspectives and working practices of those who deliver and receive a health service makes for a sensible step towards improving it. The Liverpool Co-PARS project was a four-year iterative process in which a physical activity referral scheme for inactive patients with health conditions was developed, refined, and evaluated. The aim of the present study was to explore multidisciplinary stakeholder perspectives of those involved in the co-production of Co-PARS and inform recommendations for future co-production research. We invited 5 stakeholders (service user, exercise referral practitioner, fitness centre manager, general practitioner/public health commissioner, and an academic) to co-author the present paper and provide their reflections of co-production. Four non-academic stakeholders completed a ~ 30-minute phone discussion of their personal reflections of the co-production process, transcribed in real-time by the first author and edited and checked for accuracy by the stakeholder. The fifth, academic author completed their reflections in writing. The multi-stakeholder reflections presented in this paper highlight identified strengths (multidisciplinary perspectives that were listened to and acted upon, co-production that permeated throughout the research project, real-time intervention adaptation) and challenges (homogeneous sample of service users, power imbalances, and a modestly adapted intervention) of co-production. We propose that co-production could be seen as a pro-active tool for the development of health service interventions, by mitigating potential issues encountered during latter implementation phases. We conclude with five key recommendations to facilitate future co-production research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"220 - 234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2152085\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2152085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要了解那些提供和接受医疗服务的人的观点和工作实践,有助于朝着改善医疗服务的方向迈出明智的一步。Liverpool Co-PARS项目是一个为期四年的迭代过程,其中制定、完善和评估了针对健康状况不活跃患者的体育活动转诊计划。本研究的目的是探讨参与联合制作《联合PARS》的多学科利益相关者的观点,并为未来的联合制作研究提供建议。我们邀请了5位利益相关者(服务用户、运动推荐从业者、健身中心经理、全科医生/公共卫生专员和一位学者)共同撰写本论文,并提供他们对合作制作的思考。四位非学术利益相关者完成了 ~ 30分钟的电话讨论,讨论他们对联合制作过程的个人反思,由第一作者实时转录,并由利益相关者编辑和检查准确性。第五,学术作者在写作中完成了自己的思考。本文中提出的多方利益相关者的反思强调了共同制作的优势(听取并采取行动的多学科观点、贯穿整个研究项目的共同制作、实时干预适应)和挑战(服务用户的同质样本、权力失衡和适度适应的干预)。我们建议,联合生产可以被视为制定卫生服务干预措施的一种积极工具,通过减轻实施后期遇到的潜在问题。最后,我们提出了五项关键建议,以促进未来的合作生产研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multi-stakeholder perspectives on co-production: Five key recommendations following the Liverpool Co-PARS project
ABSTRACT Discerning the perspectives and working practices of those who deliver and receive a health service makes for a sensible step towards improving it. The Liverpool Co-PARS project was a four-year iterative process in which a physical activity referral scheme for inactive patients with health conditions was developed, refined, and evaluated. The aim of the present study was to explore multidisciplinary stakeholder perspectives of those involved in the co-production of Co-PARS and inform recommendations for future co-production research. We invited 5 stakeholders (service user, exercise referral practitioner, fitness centre manager, general practitioner/public health commissioner, and an academic) to co-author the present paper and provide their reflections of co-production. Four non-academic stakeholders completed a ~ 30-minute phone discussion of their personal reflections of the co-production process, transcribed in real-time by the first author and edited and checked for accuracy by the stakeholder. The fifth, academic author completed their reflections in writing. The multi-stakeholder reflections presented in this paper highlight identified strengths (multidisciplinary perspectives that were listened to and acted upon, co-production that permeated throughout the research project, real-time intervention adaptation) and challenges (homogeneous sample of service users, power imbalances, and a modestly adapted intervention) of co-production. We propose that co-production could be seen as a pro-active tool for the development of health service interventions, by mitigating potential issues encountered during latter implementation phases. We conclude with five key recommendations to facilitate future co-production research.
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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
10.20%
发文量
36
×
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