Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing.
Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-022-01220-9
复制
发表时间：
2022-07-19
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Mandell, David S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Becker-Haimes, Emily M.;Ramesh, Brinda;Buck, Jacqueline E.;Nuske, Heather J.;Zentgraf, Kelly A.;Stewart, Rebecca E.;Buttenheim, Alison;Mandell, David S.
关键词：
渐进式设计方法是设计有针对性的实施战略的一个关键组成部分。这些方法在执行和分析其输出所需的资源方面有所不同。到目前为止，还没有任何工作研究参与式设计的不同方法所获得的产出差异的程度。我们同时使用了两种不同的参与式设计方法：（1）实地观察和定性访谈（即，传统的情境调查）和（2）快速众包（创新锦标赛）。我们的目标是生成和比较信息，以定制实施策略，从而在与自闭症儿童一起工作的一对一助手中增加基于证据的数据收集实践的使用。每种方法均由对另一种方法的输出设盲的研究团队成员执行和分析。我们估计了与每种方法相关的人员时间和金钱成本，以进一步促进比较。观察和访谈产生的实施战略（n = 26）比创新锦标赛（n = 14）的数量几乎翻了一番。当战略被归类为执行战略，从专家建议实施变革（ERIC）分类，有相当大的重叠，在确定的战略的内容。然而，来自观察和访谈的策略比来自创新锦标赛的策略更具体。五种策略（13%）反映了观察和采访所特有的内容，三种（8%）策略是创新锦标赛所特有的。只有观察和访谈确定了与适应和适应环境有关的实施战略;只有创新锦标赛确定了使用激励措施的实施战略。观察和访谈所需的工时是创新锦标赛的三倍多，但由于所使用的技术平台，创新锦标赛的总体成本更高。观察和访谈与创新锦标赛的内容有很大的重叠，尽管观察和访谈的结果更具体。然而，创新锦标赛产生了独特的信息。为了选择最佳的参与式设计方法，为特定背景下的实施策略设计提供信息，研究人员应该仔细考虑每种方法的独特优势，并权衡可用于投资的资源。
Participatory design methods are a key component of designing tailored implementation strategies. These methods vary in the resources required to execute and analyze their outputs. No work to date has examined the extent to which the output obtained from different approaches to participatory design varies. We concurrently used two separate participatory design methods: (1) field observations and qualitative interviews (i.e., traditional contextual inquiry) and (2) rapid crowd sourcing (an innovation tournament). Our goal was to generate and compare information to tailor implementation strategies to increase the use of evidence-based data collection practices among one-to-one aides working with children with autism. Each method was executed and analyzed by study team members blinded to the output of the other method. We estimated the personnel time and monetary costs associated with each method to further facilitate comparison. Observations and interviews generated nearly double the number of implementation strategies (n = 26) than did the innovation tournament (n = 14). When strategies were classified into implementation strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, there was considerable overlap in the content of identified strategies. However, strategies derived from observations and interviews were more specific than those from the innovation tournament. Five strategies (13%) reflected content unique to observations and interviews and 3 (8%) strategies were unique to the innovation tournament. Only observations and interviews identified implementation strategies related to adapting and tailoring to context; only the innovation tournament identified implementation strategies that used incentives. Observations and interviews required more than three times the personnel hours than the innovation tournament, but the innovation tournament was more costly overall due to the technological platform used. There was substantial overlap in content derived from observations and interviews and the innovation tournament, although there was greater specificity in the findings from observations and interviews. However, the innovation tournament yielded unique information. To select the best participatory design approach to inform implementation strategy design for a particular context, researchers should carefully consider unique advantages of each method and weigh the resources available to invest in the process.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0
发表时间：
2015-08-07
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Waltz TJ;Powell BJ;Matthieu MM;Damschroder LJ;Chinman MJ;Smith JL;Proctor EK;Kirchner JE
通讯作者：
Kirchner JE
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Stewart, Rebecca E.;Williams, Nathaniel;Beidas, Rinad S.
通讯作者：
Beidas, Rinad S.
DOI：
10.1007/s11414-012-9291-1
发表时间：
2012-10-01
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Green, Amy E.;Fettes, Danielle L.;Aarons, Gregory A.
通讯作者：
Aarons, Gregory A.
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Dillman, Don A.;Phelps, Glenn;Messer, Benjamin L.
通讯作者：
Messer, Benjamin L.
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Dopp, Alex R.;Parisi, Kathryn E.;Lyon, Aaron R.
通讯作者：
Lyon, Aaron R.