Purpose: To gain a rich understanding of the experiences and opinions of patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers regarding the design of OGR with structure, process, environment, and outcome components. Methods: Qualitative research based on the constructive grounded theory approach is performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who received OGR (n=13), two focus groups with healthcare professionals (n=13), and one focus group with policymakers (n=4). The Post-acute Care Rehabilitation quality framework was used as a theoretical background in all research steps. Results: The data analysis of all perspectives resulted in seven themes: the outcome of OGR focuses on the patient’s independence and regaining control over their functioning at home. Essential process elements are a patient-oriented network, a well-coordinated dedicated team at home, and blended eHealth applications. Additionally, closer cooperation in integrated care and refinement regarding financial, time-management, and technological challenges is needed with implementation into a permanent structure. All steps should be influenced by the stimulating aspect of the physical and social rehabilitation environment. Conclusion: The three perspectives generally complement each other to regain patients’ quality of life and autonomy. This study demonstrates an overview of the building blocks that can be used in developing and designing an OGR trajectory.
Wat kunnen open leeromgevingen voor jouw onderwijspraktijk betekenen? In het dynamische landschap van het onderwijs bieden omgevingen zoals living labs, hybride leeromgevingen en interdisciplinaire labs nieuwe mogelijkheden om samen te werken én te leren. Toch zorgen deze samenwerkingsvormen in onderwijswereld af en toe voor verwarring. Lectoraat Teaching en Technology wil met het magazine ‘Open leeromgevingen’, in deze wereld duiken en meer duidelijkheid geven.
Charging infrastructure development is vital for the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Yet, on the surface, there seems to be significant disagreement about when, how and which kind of charging infrastructure should be developed and most importantly, for what reasons. These reasons are concealed in the stakeholders’ perspective on the future. Differences in stakeholders’ perspectives regarding expectations on the future EV charging infrastructure may be expected, but should they prove irreconcilable they may stall the roll-out. However, to date, it remains unknown what these stakeholders’ perspectives are, how they are aligned across stakeholders, which topics are heavily debated and which are agreed upon. This study uses Q-methodology to identify different perspectives on the future of roll-out of EV charging infrastructure. The analysis shows that stakeholders mainly differ in the extent fast charging should play an important role, the degree smart charging should be the standard in charging and how much government should intervene with infrastructure roll-out. There is a consensus on the importance of interoperability of charging stations. The four different perspectives were supported across different stakeholders, which supports the idea that perspectives are not strongly linked to the stakeholders’ interests.
