Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial
Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-14-38
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-10
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Thompson, Carl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Farley, Katherine;Hanbury, Andria;Thompson, Carl
背景：卫生专业人员的行为是遵守循证建议的关键组成部分。意见领袖是一个经常使用的方法，影响这种行为的实施研究，但可靠和成本效益确定他们并不简单。以调查和问卷为基础的数据收集方法具有潜力，精心挑选的项目在理论上既有助于确定意见领袖，又有助于设计执行战略本身。本研究比较了两种方法，确定意见领袖的行为改变interventions.Methods：在一个单一的英国精神卫生NHS基金会信托工作的医疗保健专业人员被随机分配到两个问卷之一。第一份问卷稍长，要求多名意见领袖提名，并提供与每个提名人关系性质的具体信息。第二个版本较短，只要求提供一份“冠军”名单，但没有更多的额外信息。我们比较，使用卡方统计，问卷调查的答复率和卫生专业人员的数量可能会受到影响的意见领袖（即“覆盖率”）为两个问卷conditions.Results：两个问卷版本有较低的答复率：只有15%的卫生专业人员命名的同事在较长的问卷和13%在较短的版本。通过这两种方法确定的意见领袖的接触次数较少（覆盖范围，各2-6次）。两种识别方法在回复率或覆盖率方面没有显着差异。结论：两种问卷版本的回复率和人口覆盖率均较低，这表明识别实施研究意见领袖的替代方法可能更有效。未来的研究应寻求确定和评估替代，非问卷调查为基础的，确定意见领袖的方法，以最大限度地发挥他们的潜力，在组织行为改变干预。
Background: Health professionals' behaviour is a key component in compliance with evidence-based recommendations. Opinion leaders are an oft-used method of influencing such behaviours in implementation studies, but reliably and cost effectively identifying them is not straightforward. Survey and questionnaire based data collection methods have potential and carefully chosen items can - in theory - both aid identification of opinion leaders and help in the design of an implementation strategy itself. This study compares two methods of identifying opinion leaders for behaviour-change interventions.Methods: Healthcare professionals working in a single UK mental health NHS Foundation Trust were randomly allocated to one of two questionnaires. The first, slightly longer questionnaire, asked for multiple nominations of opinion leaders, with specific information about the nature of the relationship with each nominee. The second, shorter version, asked simply for a list of named "champions" but no more additional information. We compared, using Chi Square statistics, both the questionnaire response rates and the number of health professionals likely to be influenced by the opinion leaders (i.e. the "coverage" rates) for both questionnaire conditions.Results: Both questionnaire versions had low response rates: only 15% of health professionals named colleagues in the longer questionnaire and 13% in the shorter version. The opinion leaders identified by both methods had a low number of contacts (range of coverage, 2-6 each). There were no significant differences in response rates or coverage between the two identification methods.Conclusions: The low response and population coverage rates for both questionnaire versions suggest that alternative methods of identifying opinion leaders for implementation studies may be more effective. Future research should seek to identify and evaluate alternative, non-questionnaire based, methods of identifying opinion leaders in order to maximise their potential in organisational behaviour change interventions.