Search results

Basisontwerp course Interprofessionele samenwerking bij Infant Mental Health

The personal dimension of allied health professional identity

Introduction: With a shift in healthcare from diagnosis-centered to human- and interprofessional-centered work, allied health professionals (AHPs) may encounter dilemmas in daily work because of discrepancies between values of learned professional protocols and their personal values, the latter being a component of the personal dimension. The personal dimension can be defined as a set of personal components that have a substantial impact on professional identity. In this study, we aim to improve the understanding of the role played by the personal dimension, by answering the following research question: What is known about the personal dimension of the professional identity of AHPs in (allied) health literature? Methods: In the scoping review, databases, CINAHL, ERIC, Medline, PubMed, and PsychINFO were searched for studies focusing on what is regarded as ‘the personal dimension of professional identity’ of AHPs in the health literature; 81 out of 815 articles were included and analyzed in this scoping review. A varying degree of attention for the personal dimension within the various allied health professions was observed. Result: After analysis, we introduce the concept of four aspects in the personal dimension of AHPs. We explain how these aspects overlap to some degree and feed into each other. The first aspect encompasses characteristics like gender, age, nationality, and ethnicity. The second aspect consists of the life experiences of the professional. The third involves character traits related to resilience and virtues. The fourth aspect, worldview, is formed by the first three aspects and consists of the core beliefs and values of AHPs, paired with personal norms. Discussion: These four aspects are visualized in a conceptual model that aims to make AHPs more aware of their own personal dimension, as well as the personal dimension of their colleagues intra- and interprofessionally. It is recommended that more research be carried out to examine how the personal dimension affects allied health practice.

Grounding practices

From the article: Research through Design projects in the health domain often involve collaborations of design and healthcare researchers. All partners have their own ideas and expectations with regard to what they consider valid ways to support their work. The evidence-based approach that dominates healthcare research differs from the ways that are common in design research, in which more iterative approaches are applied with focus on developing solutions to fit to the users and their context. The question that we address is twofold: a) How do differences in grounding approaches manifest themselves in projects where design and healthcare researchers collaborate? And b) How do project teams deal with these differences? We analyzed the grounding practices within ten Dutch research projects that address the development of e-health applications to support people as they grow older. All projects are collaborations of design and healthcare researchers and practice partners. We applied a multiple case study research approach in two series of interviews, with a cross-case interpretation after the first series of interviews to direct the second series. Differences in grounding approaches in the projects manifest themselves on four themes, each representing a spectrum: time, structure, control and position. These differences provided challenges, but were also used to strengthen the project.

Games for Health

Founded in 2004, the Games for Health Project supports community, knowledge and business development efforts to use cutting-edge games and game technologies to improve health and health care. The Games for Health Conference brings together researchers, medical professionals and game developers to share information about the impact of games, playful interaction and game technologies on health, health care and policy. Over two days, more than 400 attendees participate in over 60 sessions provided by an international array of 80+ speakers, cutting across a wide range of activities in health and health care. Topics include exergaming, physical therapy, disease management, health behavior change, biofeedback, rehab, epidemiology, training, cognitive health, nutrition and health education.

How to support a co-creative research approach in order to foster impact

Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.

Preparing researchers for patient and public involvement in scientific research

Background: Acquiring the theoretical and practical knowhow of conducting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is not part of the traditional curriculum of researchers. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Huis voor de Zorg, a regional umbrella patient organization, therefore started a 1.5-year coaching programme. Objective: To establish a community of practice by developing a PPI coaching programme for senior and junior health services researchers of Zuyd University. The context consisted of research projects conducted by the participants. Methods: A participatory action research methodology. Data were collected from reports of thematic group meetings and individual sessions with participants, field notes and regular reflection meetings with the project team. Data were analysed by reflexive deliberation. Findings: The programme comprised a kick-off meeting (52 attendees), followed by 7 group meetings with 11 junior and 9 senior researchers. The project team constructed a serious game based on the concept of the participation ladder. Questions and concerns differed for junior and senior researchers, and separate tailored meetings were organized for both groups. Between group meetings, participants received individual assignments. Group meetings were accompanied by individual coaching sessions to provide tailor-made feedback. The programme concluded with a combined meeting with all stakeholders. Conclusion: Building a community of PPI practice through action research facilitates the development of a coaching programme that fosters social learning, empowerment and the development of a shared identity concerning PPI. The role and responsibilities of senior researchers should be distinguished from those of junior researchers.