利用可接受性评估的协同干预映射通过设计学习:以群体为基础的农场安全干预为例

IF 2.9 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
T. O’Connor, J. Kinsella, J. McNamara, D. O’Hora, D. Meredith
{"title":"利用可接受性评估的协同干预映射通过设计学习:以群体为基础的农场安全干预为例","authors":"T. O’Connor, J. Kinsella, J. McNamara, D. O’Hora, D. Meredith","doi":"10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose To systematically develop a farm safety intervention for farmer peer learning groups, to support safe working practice adoption. Design/Methodology/Approach An iterative, multi-actor process was used, guided by the Intervention Mapping framework and the Socio-Ecological Model. The target peer learning groups were Irish dairy farmer discussion groups (DDGs). Literature review, semi-structured interviews, surveys, and participant observation informed an initial intervention design, which provided a starting point for collaborative intervention development. The final design comprised two intervention approaches, A and B, differing in frequency and discussion length. In a seven-month cluster-randomised, controlled pilot study, 76 DDGs implemented the design. Findings The designs were standardised but adaptable to individual group interests and schedules. Pre-pilot feedback from farm advisors (intervention deliverers), and farmer and advisor recruitment, indicated good intervention acceptability initially. Challenges were experienced during implementation, but 52% of DDGs participating in the infrequent, long discussions approach (‘A’) and 72% of those in the frequent, short discussions approach (‘B’) completed at least some of the protocol. Practical implications The multi-actor approach resulted in two flexible, acceptable designs, responsive to group culture and dynamics. Frequent, short discussions were acceptable to a greater number of groups than infrequent, long discussions. Theoretical implications The Socio-Ecological Model, combined with multi-actor Intervention Mapping, provided a robust framework for the development of acceptable, practical, evidence-based farm safety and health promotion initiatives. Originality/Value The systematic public health research-driven approach evolved iteratively to a DDG practice-driven approach, through integration of Intervention Mapping with collaborative multi-actor design. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT","PeriodicalId":46772,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension","volume":"27 1","pages":"403 - 420"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858889","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning through design using collaborative Intervention Mapping with acceptability evaluation: the case of a group-based farm safety intervention\",\"authors\":\"T. O’Connor, J. Kinsella, J. McNamara, D. O’Hora, D. Meredith\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Purpose To systematically develop a farm safety intervention for farmer peer learning groups, to support safe working practice adoption. Design/Methodology/Approach An iterative, multi-actor process was used, guided by the Intervention Mapping framework and the Socio-Ecological Model. The target peer learning groups were Irish dairy farmer discussion groups (DDGs). Literature review, semi-structured interviews, surveys, and participant observation informed an initial intervention design, which provided a starting point for collaborative intervention development. The final design comprised two intervention approaches, A and B, differing in frequency and discussion length. In a seven-month cluster-randomised, controlled pilot study, 76 DDGs implemented the design. Findings The designs were standardised but adaptable to individual group interests and schedules. Pre-pilot feedback from farm advisors (intervention deliverers), and farmer and advisor recruitment, indicated good intervention acceptability initially. Challenges were experienced during implementation, but 52% of DDGs participating in the infrequent, long discussions approach (‘A’) and 72% of those in the frequent, short discussions approach (‘B’) completed at least some of the protocol. Practical implications The multi-actor approach resulted in two flexible, acceptable designs, responsive to group culture and dynamics. Frequent, short discussions were acceptable to a greater number of groups than infrequent, long discussions. Theoretical implications The Socio-Ecological Model, combined with multi-actor Intervention Mapping, provided a robust framework for the development of acceptable, practical, evidence-based farm safety and health promotion initiatives. Originality/Value The systematic public health research-driven approach evolved iteratively to a DDG practice-driven approach, through integration of Intervention Mapping with collaborative multi-actor design. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT\",\"PeriodicalId\":46772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"403 - 420\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858889\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858889\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858889","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要目的系统地为农民同伴学习小组制定农场安全干预措施,以支持采用安全工作实践。设计/方法/方法在干预制图框架和社会生态模型的指导下,使用了一个迭代的、多因素的过程。目标同伴学习小组是爱尔兰奶农讨论小组(DDG)。文献综述、半结构化访谈、调查和参与者观察为初步干预设计提供了信息,为合作干预开发提供了起点。最终设计包括两种干预方法,A和B,其频率和讨论长度不同。在一项为期七个月的随机对照试验研究中,76个DDG实施了该设计。研究结果这些设计是标准化的,但可以适应个人群体的兴趣和时间表。农场顾问(干预交付者)以及农民和顾问招募的试点前反馈表明,最初干预可接受性良好。在实施过程中遇到了挑战,但52%的参与不频繁、长时间讨论方法(“A”)的DDG和72%的参与频繁、短时间讨论方法的DDG至少完成了部分协议。实际意义多方参与的方法产生了两种灵活、可接受的设计,以响应群体文化和动态。与不频繁的长时间讨论相比,频繁的短时间讨论被更多的团体所接受。理论含义社会生态模型与多方干预制图相结合,为制定可接受的、实用的、循证的农场安全和健康促进举措提供了一个强有力的框架。独创性/价值通过将干预映射与多参与者协作设计相结合,系统的公共卫生研究驱动方法迭代演变为DDG实践驱动方法。图形摘要
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning through design using collaborative Intervention Mapping with acceptability evaluation: the case of a group-based farm safety intervention
ABSTRACT Purpose To systematically develop a farm safety intervention for farmer peer learning groups, to support safe working practice adoption. Design/Methodology/Approach An iterative, multi-actor process was used, guided by the Intervention Mapping framework and the Socio-Ecological Model. The target peer learning groups were Irish dairy farmer discussion groups (DDGs). Literature review, semi-structured interviews, surveys, and participant observation informed an initial intervention design, which provided a starting point for collaborative intervention development. The final design comprised two intervention approaches, A and B, differing in frequency and discussion length. In a seven-month cluster-randomised, controlled pilot study, 76 DDGs implemented the design. Findings The designs were standardised but adaptable to individual group interests and schedules. Pre-pilot feedback from farm advisors (intervention deliverers), and farmer and advisor recruitment, indicated good intervention acceptability initially. Challenges were experienced during implementation, but 52% of DDGs participating in the infrequent, long discussions approach (‘A’) and 72% of those in the frequent, short discussions approach (‘B’) completed at least some of the protocol. Practical implications The multi-actor approach resulted in two flexible, acceptable designs, responsive to group culture and dynamics. Frequent, short discussions were acceptable to a greater number of groups than infrequent, long discussions. Theoretical implications The Socio-Ecological Model, combined with multi-actor Intervention Mapping, provided a robust framework for the development of acceptable, practical, evidence-based farm safety and health promotion initiatives. Originality/Value The systematic public health research-driven approach evolved iteratively to a DDG practice-driven approach, through integration of Intervention Mapping with collaborative multi-actor design. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
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
5.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension is published to inform experts who do or use research on agricultural education and extension about research conducted in this field worldwide. Information about this research is needed to improve policies, strategies, methods and practices for agricultural education and extension. The Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension accepts authorative and well-referenced scientific articles within the field of agricultural education and extension after a double-blind peer review process. Agricultural education and extension faces profound change, and therefore its core area of attention is moving towards communication, competence development and performance improvement for a wide variety of fields and audiences, most of which can be studied from a multi-disciplinary perspective, including: -Communication for Development- Competence Management and Development- Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Development- Design and Implementation of Competence–based Education- Environmental and Natural Resource Management- Entrepreneurship and Learning- Facilitating Multiple-Stakeholder Processes- Health and Society- Innovation of Agricultural-Technical Education- Innovation Systems and Learning- Integrated Rural Development- Interdisciplinary and Social Learning- Learning, Conflict and Decision Making- Poverty Reduction- Performance Improvement- Sustainable Agricultural Production
×
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