Aim: to identify: (1) nursing competencies for FCC in a hospital setting; and (2) to explore perspectives on these competencies among Dutch and Australian professionals including lecturers, researchers, Registered Nurses and policy makers. Design: A multinational cross-sectional study using Q-methodology. Methods: First, an integrative review was carried out to identify known competencies regarding FCC and to develop the Q-set (search up to July 2018). Second, purposive sampling was used to ensure stakeholder involvement. Third, participants sorted the Q-set using a web-based system between May and August 2019. Lastly, the data were analysed using a by-person factor analysis. The commentaries on the five highest and lowest ranked competencies were thematically analysed. Results: The integrative review identified 43 articles from which 72 competencies were identified. In total 69 participants completed the Q-sorting. We extracted two factors with an explained variance of 24%. The low explained variance hampered labelling. Based on a post-hoc qualitative analysis, four themes emerged from the competencies that were considered most important, namely: (a) believed preconditions for FCC; (b) promote a partnership between nurses, patients and families; (c) be a basic element of nursing; and (d) represent a necessary positive attitude and strong beliefs of the added value of FCC. Three themes appeared from the competencies that were considered least important because they: (a) were not considered a specific nursing competency; (b) demand a multidisciplinary approach; or (c) require that patients and families take own responsibility. Conclusions: Among healthcare professionals, there is substantial disagreement on which nursing competencies are deemed most important for FCC. Impact: Our set of competencies can be used to guide education and evaluate practicing nurses in hospitals. These findings are valuable to consider different views on FCC before implementation of new FCC interventions into nursing practice.
Abstract Background. Fever in children is common and mostly caused by self-limiting infections. However, parents of febrile children often consult in general practice, in particular during out-of-hours care. To improve management, it is important to understand experiences of GPs managing these consultations. Objective. To describe GPs’ experiences regarding management of childhood fever during out-ofhours care. Methods. A descriptive qualitative study using purposeful sampling, five focus group discussions were held among 37 GPs. Analysis was based on constant comparative technique using open and axial coding. Results. Main categories were: (i) Workload and general experience; (ii) GPs’ perceptions of determinants of consulting behaviour; (iii) Parents’ expectations from the GP’s point of view; (iv) Antibiotic prescribing decisions; (v) Uncertainty of GPs versus uncertainty of parents and (vi) Information exchange during the consultation. GPs felt management of childhood fever imposes a considerable workload. They perceived a mismatch between parental concerns and their own impression of illness severity, which combined with time–pressure can lead to frustration. Diagnostic uncertainty is driven by low incidences of serious infections and dealing with parental demand for antibiotics is still challenging. Conclusion. Children with a fever account for a high workload during out-of-hours GP care which provides a diagnostic challenge due to the low incidence of serious illnesses and lacking longterm relationship. This can lead to frustration and drives antibiotics prescription rates. Improving information exchange during consultations and in the general public to young parents, could help provide a safety net thereby enhancing self-management, reducing consultations and workload, and subsequent antibiotic prescriptions.
In the course of our supervisory work over the years we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The first article provides an introduction to this series. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs. The third article focused on sampling, data collection and analysis. This fourth article addresses FAQs about trustworthiness and publishing. Quality criteria for all qualitative research are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Reflexivity is an integral part of ensuring the transparency and quality of qualitative research. Writing a qualitative research article reflects the iterative nature of the qualitative research process: data analysis continues while writing. A qualitative research article is mostly narrative and tends to be longer than a quantitative paper, and sometimes requires a different structure. Editors essentially use the criteria: is it new, is it true, is it relevant? An effective cover letter enhances confidence in the newness, trueness and relevance, and explains why your study required a qualitative design. It provides information about the way you applied quality criteria or a checklist, and you can attach the checklist to the manuscript.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
‘Dieren in de dijk’ aims to address the issue of animal burrows in earthen levees, which compromise the integrity of flood protection systems in low-lying areas. Earthen levees attract animals that dig tunnels and cause damages, yet there is limited scientific knowledge on the extent of the problem and effective approaches to mitigate the risk. Recent experimental research has demonstrated the severe impact of animal burrows on levee safety, raising concerns among levee management authorities. The consortium's ambition is to provide levee managers with validated action perspectives for managing animal burrows, transitioning from a reactive to a proactive risk-based management approach. The objectives of the project include improving failure probability estimation in levee sections with animal burrows and enhancing risk mitigation capacity. This involves understanding animal behavior and failure processes, reviewing existing and testing new deterrence, detection, and monitoring approaches, and offering action perspectives for levee managers. Results will be integrated into an open-access wiki-platform for guidance of professionals and in education of the next generation. The project's methodology involves focus groups to review the state-of-the-art and set the scene for subsequent steps, fact-finding fieldwork to develop and evaluate risk reduction measures, modeling failure processes, and processing diverse quantitative and qualitative data. Progress workshops and collaboration with stakeholders will ensure relevant and supported solutions. By addressing the knowledge gaps and providing practical guidance, the project aims to enable levee managers to effectively manage animal burrows in levees, both during routine maintenance and high-water emergencies. With the increasing frequency of high river discharges and storm surges due to climate change, early detection and repair of animal burrows become even more crucial. The project's outcomes will contribute to a long-term vision of proactive risk-based management for levees, safeguarding the Netherlands and Belgium against flood risks.
communicative participation, language disordersOBJECTIVE(S)/RESEARCH QUESTION(S) Speech and language therapists (SLTs) are the primary care professionals to treat language and communication disorders. Their treatment is informed by a variety of outcome measures. At present, diagnosis, monitoring of progress and evaluation are often based on performance-based and clinician-reported outcomes such as results of standardized speech, language, voice, or communication tests. These tests typically aim to capture how well the person can produce or understand language in a controlled situation, and therefore only provide limited insight in the person’s challenges in life. Performance measures do not incorporate the unobservable feelings such as a patient's effort, social embarrassment, difficulty, or confidence in communication. Nor do they address language and communication difficulties experienced by the person themselves, the impact on daily life or allow patients to set goals related to their own needs and wishes. The aim of our study is give our patients a voice and empower SLTs to incorporate their patient's perspective in planning therapy. We will Aangemaakt door ProjectNet / Generated by ProjectNet: 08-12-2020 12:072Subsidieaanvraag_digitaal / Grant Application_digitaalDossier nummer / Dossier number: 80-86900-98-041DEFINITIEFdevelop a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure that provides information on communicative participation of people with communication disorders and integrate this item bank in patient specific goal setting in speech and language therapy. Both the item bank and the goal setting method will be adapted in cocreation with patients to enable access for people with communication difficulties.STUDY DESIGN Mixed methods research design following the MRC guidance for process evaluation of complex interventions, using PROMIS methodology including psychometric evaluation and an iterative user-centered design with qualitative co-creation methods to develop accessible items and the goal setting method.RESEARCH POPULATION Children, adolescents and adults with speech, language, hearing, and voice disorders.OUTCOME MEASURES An online patient-reported outcome measure on communicative participation, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB), CPIB items that are accessible for people with language understanding difficulties, a communicative-participation person-specific goal setting method developed with speech and language therapists and patients and tested on usability and feasibility in clinical practice, and a course for SLTs explaining the use of the goal-setting method in their clinical reasoning process.RELEVANCE This study answers one of the prioritized questions in the call for SLTs to systematically and reliably incorporate the clients’ perspective in their daily practice to improve the quality of SLT services. At present patient reported outcomes play only a small role in speech and language therapy because 1) measures (PROMS) are often invalid, not implemented and unsuitable for clinical practice and 2) there is a knowledge gap in how to capture and interpret outcomes from persons with language disorders.
