Sharing voice during deliberative engagement to improve guideline adherence in dental clinics: findings from a qualitative evaluation of an online deliberative forum discussion.
Sharing voice during deliberative engagement to improve guideline adherence in dental clinics: findings from a qualitative evaluation of an online deliberative forum discussion.
复制标题
在审议期间分享声音，以提高牙科诊所的指南遵守：从在线审议论坛讨论的定性评估中的发现。
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072727
复制
发表时间：
2023-07-05
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Polk, Deborah E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gruss, Inga;Dawson, Tim;Kaplan, Charles D.;Pihlstrom, Daniel J.;Reich, Sacha;Fellows, Jeffrey L.;Polk, Deborah E.
选择有效的实施策略，以支持指南一致的牙科护理是一个复杂的过程。对于这个研究项目，一个在线审议论坛汇集了来自牙科诊所的工作人员，讨论实施战略的优势和劣势以及实施牙科（窝沟）指南的一个组成部分的障碍。目的是确定审议参与是否使参与者能够分享关于实施战略的促进和禁止的声音，以促进与指南一致的护理。对31个小组会议的在线聊天记录进行定性分析。Kaiser Permanente Dental（KP Dental）美国16个牙科诊所的所有工作人员。定向内容分析显示，参与者共同禁止和促进的声音时，提供的障碍和研究人员建议的实施策略的批评。分析还显示，审议的重点往往不是研究小组打算审议的坑和裂缝指南方面。审议论坛讨论是一个富有成效的场所，要求牙科诊所的工作人员分享他们对促进指南一致性护理以及障碍的策略的看法。参与者表现出令人生畏的声音，并对研究团队收集的材料进行了批判性的研究。审议工作的一个重要局限是，讨论往往围绕着坑和裂缝准则中已经得到很好执行的一个方面。为了确保审议的方向是解决坑和裂缝指南的挑战性方面，更熟悉的指南是很重要的，以及更深入地了解目前的差异，在指南一致的护理。该项目在ClinicalTrials.gov注册，ID为NCT 04682730。该试验于二零二零年十二月十八日首次登记。https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.
Selecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. For this research project, an online deliberative forum brought together staff from dental clinics to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of implementation strategies and barriers to implementation of a component of a dental (pit-and-fissure) guideline. The goal was to determine whether deliberative engagement enabled participants’ sharing of promotive and prohibitive voice about implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care. Qualitative analysis of online chat transcripts of facilitated deliberations from 31 small group sessions. Kaiser Permanente Dental (KP Dental) in the USA. All staff from 16 dental offices. The directed content analysis revealed that participants shared prohibitive and promotive voice when offering critique of the barriers and the implementation strategies suggested by the researchers. The analysis also revealed that the focus of the deliberations often was not on the aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline intended by the research team for deliberation. The deliberative forum discussions were a productive venue to ask staff in dental clinics to share their perspectives on strategies to promote guideline-concordant care as well as barriers. Participants demonstrated prohibitive voice and engaged critically with the materials the research team had put together. An important limitation of the deliberation was that the discussion often centred around an aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline that already was implemented well. To ensure a deliberation oriented towards resolving challenging aspects of the pit-and-fissure guideline, greater familiarity with the guideline would have been important, as well as more intimate knowledge of the current discrepancies in guideline-concordant care. This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 18 December 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Hsieh, HF;Shannon, SE
通讯作者：
Shannon, SE
DOI：
10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6
发表时间：
2017-04
期刊：
The journal of behavioral health services & research
影响因子：
--
作者：
Powell BJ;Beidas RS;Lewis CC;Aarons GA;McMillen JC;Proctor EK;Mandell DS
通讯作者：
Mandell DS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Gruss, I;Pihlstrom, D. J.;Polk, D. E.
通讯作者：
Polk, D. E.
检查和解决癌症护理中的证据差距：系统评价。
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-9-37
发表时间：
2014-03-25
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bryant J;Boyes A;Jones K;Sanson-Fisher R;Carey M;Fry R
通讯作者：
Fry R
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Guerrero EG;Kaplan CD;Gruß I;Frantsve-Hawley J;Fellows JL;Yosuf N;Polk DE
通讯作者：
Polk DE