Post-Doctroral Fellow, University of Cape Town
Increasing pressure to improve health outcomes of populations with limited resources has prompted an emphasis on innovation. Design thinking has been proposed as a systematic approach to innovation in health, owing to its human-centred methodology that prioritises deep empathy for the end-users’ desires, needs and challenges, and results in a better understanding of the problem in order to develop more comprehensive and effective solutions. A key feature of design thinking is stakeholder participation. However, if stakeholders view their participation as merely instrumental, innovation can be stifled and the relationship between the researcher and stakeholders may break down. Evaluating stakeholder participation during the design thinking process provides a basis from which to improve interaction with and between stakeholders. Drawing from participatory research in health, where stakeholder participation is recognised as a core principle that facilitates the implementation of solutions, we can integrate stakeholder evaluation tools into the design thinking approach. We draw on typologies that describe levels of stakeholder participation and their involvement in making decisions about their health, and propose a modified assessment framework to evaluate stakeholder participation during the design thinking process. The modified framework provides a simple and practical tool to evaluate stakeholder participation, and can be used at different times and by different assessors. Evaluation of participation in a design thinking project may be used to improve participation, and therefore the uptake and sustainability of innovations. The framework may be used in design thinking beyond health applications.
Abstract: To retrospectively explore research outcomes in Australian public health research and their relationship to full engagement with potential research users during the research process.A self-administered survey of all principal investigators (PIs) receiving research funds from one of three well-known research funding agencies. 'Research value' and 'research utility' were self-reported using fixed response sets. Associations between outcomes and 'full engagement' were examined.Our response rate (75.1%) yielded data for 187 research projects. For just over one-quarter (26.7%), 'research value' was rated 'very important' in terms of knowledge generation. The most common 'research utility' was 'continuing education' (27.3%) followed by 'policy formulation' (25.7%). While 66 (35.3%) projects engaged at least one potential research user group throughout 'full engagement', such an intertwined relationship between researchers and research users was not associated with research value (chi(2)=0.46, 1df, p=0.5) or research utility (chi(2)=2.19, 1df, p=0.14). There were no predictors of 'full engagement'. In just over a third of projects (34.8%), both part of the awarded grant and additional funding had been spent to promote research use.This snapshot demonstrates patchy research engagement between researchers and research users. Other academic groups were the most common partner for full engagement. In an evidence-based era, innovation in health research funding policy should be evaluated. As NHMRC embarks upon its 'Partnerships initiative' in 2009, we recommend a prospective approach to evaluation.
Pub.: 28 Jul '09, Pinned: 19 Sep '17
Abstract: Authors: Mark Hughes Article URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0312407X.2016.1219976?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R Citation: Australian Social Work Publication Date: 2016-09-05T02:20:01Z Journal: Australian Social Work
Pub.: 05 Sep '16, Pinned: 19 Sep '17
Abstract: To understand researcher capability for and interest in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (PC-CER), particularly related to engaging with patients/caregivers.Web-based survey of 508 health researchers recruited via professional health research organizations.Most respondents (94%) were familiar with CER and many (69%) reported having previously conducting some form of CER. Most respondents were familiar with (81%) and interested in (87%) partnering with patients and/or caregivers in research. Resources to assist in training, coordination of partners, guidance in apply for funding and improved infrastructure were commonly cited factors that would help researchers conduct PC-CER.There is a significant opportunity for researchers to engage patients and caregivers as partners in CER. Researchers recognize the need for additional training and expertise to leverage those opportunities.
Pub.: 09 Feb '17, Pinned: 19 Sep '17
Join Sparrho today to stay on top of science
Discover, organise and share research that matters to you