Using cognitive interviews to improve a measure of organizational readiness for implementation.
Using cognitive interviews to improve a measure of organizational readiness for implementation.
复制标题
使用认知访谈来改善组织准备就绪的衡量标准。
DOI：
10.1186/s12913-022-09005-y
复制
发表时间：
2023-01-27
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Fernandez, Maria E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McClam, Maria;Workman, Lauren;Dias, Emanuelle M.;Walker, Timothy J.;Brandt, Heather M.;Craig, Derek W.;Gibson, Robert;Lamont, Andrea;Weiner, Bryan J.;Wandersman, Abraham;Fernandez, Maria E.
关键词：
组织准备是成功实施循证干预措施（EBI）的关键因素，但需要一个有效和可靠的措施来评估不同背景和环境下的准备情况。R = MC 2启发式假设，组织准备源于一个组织的动机，实施特定创新的能力，以及它的一般能力。本文介绍了一个过程，用于检查的脸和内容的有效性项目的准备调查，以评估组织的准备（基于R = MC 2）之间的联邦合格的卫生中心（MANHC）实施结直肠癌筛查（CRCS）EBI。我们在南卡罗来纳州和德克萨斯州对美国心脏病协会的工作人员（临床和非临床）进行了20次认知访谈。向参与者提供了准备调查中的一部分项目供其审查。一个半结构化的采访指南，以获得反馈，从参与者使用“大声思考”和探测技术。参与者是使用有目的的抽样方法招募的，访谈是使用Zoom和WebEx虚拟进行的。参与者被问及1）项目的相关性，2）他们如何解释项目或特定术语的含义，3）识别难以理解的项目，以及4）如何改进项目。访谈逐字记录，并在ATLAS. ti中编码。调查结果被用来修订准备调查。主要建议包括缩短调查长度，删除多余或难以理解的项目。此外，与会者建议在整个报告中使用一致的术语（例如，其他单位/团队对部门）调查和改变代词（例如，人，我们）更具体（例如，领导层、工作人员）。此外，与会者建议明确规定模糊的术语（例如，“更好”是什么意思）。使用认知访谈允许参与过程，以完善现有的准备措施。改进和最终确定的准备调查可用于支持和改善CRCS EBI在诊所环境中的实施，从而减少癌症负担和与癌症相关的健康差异。在线版本包含补充材料，可通过10.1186/s12913-022-09005-y获得。
Organizational readiness is a key factor for successful implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), but a valid and reliable measure to assess readiness across contexts and settings is needed. The R = MC2 heuristic posits that organizational readiness stems from an organization’s motivation, capacity to implement a specific innovation, and its general capacity. This paper describes a process used to examine the face and content validity of items in a readiness survey developed to assess organizational readiness (based on R = MC2) among federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) EBIs. We conducted 20 cognitive interviews with FQHC staff (clinical and non-clinical) in South Carolina and Texas. Participants were provided a subset of items from the readiness survey to review. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit feedback from participants using “think aloud” and probing techniques. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach and interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom and WebEx. Participants were asked 1) about the relevancy of items, 2) how they interpreted the meaning of items or specific terms, 3) to identify items that were difficult to understand, and 4) how items could be improved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in ATLAS.ti. Findings were used to revise the readiness survey. Key recommendations included reducing the survey length and removing redundant or difficult to understand items. Additionally, participants recommended using consistent terms throughout (e.g., other units/teams vs. departments) the survey and changing pronouns (e.g., people, we) to be more specific (e.g., leadership, staff). Moreover, participants recommended specifying ambiguous terms (e.g., define what “better” means). Use of cognitive interviews allowed for an engaged process to refine an existing measure of readiness. The improved and finalized readiness survey can be used to support and improve implementation of CRCS EBIs in the clinic setting and thus reduce the cancer burden and cancer-related health disparities. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-09005-y.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
发表时间：
2009-08-07
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Damschroder LJ;Aron DC;Keith RE;Kirsh SR;Alexander JA;Lowery JC
通讯作者：
Lowery JC
影响因子：
3
作者：
Drzensky, Frank;Egold, Nikolai;van Dick, Rolf
通讯作者：
van Dick, Rolf
影响因子：
11.3
作者：
Hanailton, Alison B.;Finley, Erin P.
通讯作者：
Finley, Erin P.
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Flaspohler, Paul;Duffy, Jennifer;Maras, Melissa A.
通讯作者：
Maras, Melissa A.
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Hannon, Peggy A.;Maxwell, Annette E.;Degroff, Amy
通讯作者：
Degroff, Amy