ZoekresultatenZoekresultaten
Volg ons op
Volg ons op
Types
0Instelling
26Bestandstype
9Taal
5Publicatiejaar
12Thema's
14Producttype
14Publicaties met bestand / URL
2Projectstatus
3BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in empowering older adults to age in place by deploying various types of technology (ie, eHealth, ambient assisted living technology, smart home technology, and gerontechnology). However, initiatives aimed at implementing these technologies are complicated by the fact that multiple stakeholder groups are involved. Goals and motives of stakeholders may not always be transparent or aligned, yet research on convergent and divergent positions of stakeholders is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the positions of stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of technology for aging in place by answering the following questions: What kind of technology do stakeholders see as relevant? What do stakeholders aim to achieve by implementing technology? What is needed to achieve successful implementations? METHODS: Mono-disciplinary focus groups were conducted with participants (n=29) representing five groups of stakeholders: older adults (6/29, 21%), care professionals (7/29, 24%), managers within home care or social work organizations (5/29, 17%), technology designers and suppliers (6/29, 21%), and policy makers (5/29, 17%). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholders considered 26 different types of technologies to be relevant for enabling independent living. Only 6 out of 26 (23%) types of technology were mentioned by all stakeholder groups. Care professionals mentioned fewer different types of technology than other groups. All stakeholder groups felt that the implementation of technology for aging in place can be considered a success when (1) older adults' needs and wishes are prioritized during development and deployment of the technology, (2) the technology is accepted by older adults, (3) the technology provides benefits to older adults, and (4) favorable prerequisites for the use of technology by older adults exist. While stakeholders seemed to have identical aims, several underlying differences emerged, for example, with regard to who should pay for the technology. Additionally, each stakeholder group mentioned specific steps that need to be taken to achieve successful implementation. Collectively, stakeholders felt that they need to take the leap (ie, change attitudes, change policies, and collaborate with other organizations); bridge the gap (ie, match technology with individuals and stimulate interdisciplinary education); facilitate technology for the masses (ie, work on products and research that support large-scale rollouts and train target groups on how to use technology); and take time to reflect (ie, evaluate use and outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders largely agree on the direction in which they should be heading; however, they have different perspectives with regard to the technologies that can be employed and the work that is needed to implement them. Central to these issues seems to be the tailoring of technology or technologies to the specific needs of each community-dwelling older adult and the work that is needed by stakeholders to support this type of service delivery on a large scale. KEYWORDS: aged; eHealth; focus groups; health services for the elderly; implementation management; independent living; project and people management; qualitative research; technology
LINK
Introduction: Learning is essential for sustainable employability. However, various factors make work-related learning more difficult for certain groups of workers, who are consequently at a disadvantage in the labour market. In the long term, that in turn can have adverse health implications and can make those groups vulnerable. With a view to encouraging workers to continue learning, the Netherlands has a policy on work-related learning, which forms part of the 'Vitality Package'.
Aim: A Health Impact Assessment with equity focus (HIAef) was undertaken to determine whether the policy on work-related learning affected certain groups of workers and their health in different ways, and whether the differences were avoidable.
Methods: The HIAef method involved the standard phases: screening, scoping, appraisal and recommendations. Equity was the core principle in this method. Data were collected by means of both literature searches (e.g., Scopus, Medline) and interviews with experts and stakeholders (e.g., expertise regarding work, training and/or health).
Results: The HIAef identified the following groups as potentially vulnerable in the field of work-related learning: the chronically sick, older people, less educated people, flexi-workers/the self-employed and lay carers (e.g., thresholds to learning). Published literature indicates that work-related learning may have a positive influence on health through (work-related) factors such as pay, employability, longer employment rate and training-participation. According to experts and stakeholders, work-related learning policy could be adapted to take more account of vulnerable groups through alignment with their particular needs, such as early support, informal learning and e-learning.
Conclusion: With a view to reducing avoidable inequalities in work-related learning, it is recommended that early, low-threshold, accessible opportunities are made available to identified vulnerable groups. Making such opportunities available may have a positive effect on (continued) participation in the labour market and thus on the health of the relevant groups.
DOCUMENT
Background
Tackling challenges related to health, environmental sustainability and equity requires many sectors to work together. This “intersectoral co-operation” can pose a challenge on its own. Research commonly focuses on one field or is conducted within one region or country. The aim of this study was to investigate facilitators and barriers regarding intersectoral co-operative behaviour as experienced in twelve distinct case studies in ten European countries. The COM-B behavioural system was applied to investigate which capabilities, opportunities and motivational elements appear necessary for co-operative behaviour.
Method
Twelve focus groups were conducted between October 2018 and March 2019, with a total of 76 participants (policymakers, case study coordinators, governmental institutes and/or non-governmental organisations representing citizens or citizens). Focus groups were organised locally and held in the native language using a common protocol and handbook. One central organisation coordinated the focus groups and analysed the results. Translated data were analysed using deductive thematic analysis, applying previous intersectoral co-operation frameworks and the COM-B behavioural system.
Results
Amongst the main facilitators experienced were having highly motivated partners who find common goals and see mutual benefits, with good personal relationships and trust (Motivation). In addition, having supportive environments that provide opportunities to co-operate in terms of support and resources facilitated co-operation (Opportunity), along with motivated co-operation partners who have long-term visions, create good external visibility and who have clear agreements and clarity on roles from early on (Capability). Barriers included not having necessary and/or structural resources or enough time, and negative attitudes from specific stakeholders.
Conclusions
This study on facilitators and barriers to intersectoral co-operation in ten European countries confirms findings of earlier studies. This study also demonstrates that the COM-B model can serve as a relatively simple tool to understand co-operative behaviour in terms of the capability, opportunity and motivation required amongst co-operation partners from different sectors. Results can support co-operators’ and policymakers’ understanding of necessary elements of intersectoral co-operation. It can help them in developing more successful intersectoral co-operation when dealing with challenges of health, environmental sustainability and equity.
DOCUMENT
Smart glasses were perceived to be potentially revolutionary for healthcare, however, there is only limited research on the acceptance and social implications of smart glasses in healthcare. This study aims to get a better insight into the theoretical foundations and the purpose was to identify themes regarding adoption, mediation, and the use of smart glasses from the perspective of healthcare professionals. A qualitative research design with focus groups was used to collect data. Three focus groups with 22 participants were conducted. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Our analysis revealed six overarching themes related to the anticipated adoption of smart glasses: knowledge, innovativeness, use cases, ethical issues, persuasion, and attitude. Nine themes were found related to anticipated mediation and use of smart glasses: attention, emotions, social influences, design, context, camera use, risks, comparisons to known products, and expected reaction and might influence the acceptance of smart glasses.
MULTIFILE
Smart glasses were perceived to be potentially revolutionary for healthcare, however, there is only limited research on the acceptance and social implications of smart glasses in healthcare. This study aims to get a better insight into the theoretical foundations and the purpose was to identify themes regarding adoption, mediation, and the use of smart glasses from the perspective of healthcare professionals. A qualitative research design with focus groups was used to collect data. Three focus groups with 22 participants were conducted. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Our analysis revealed six overarching themes related to the anticipated adoption of smart glasses: knowledge, innovativeness, use cases, ethical issues, persuasion, and attitude. Nine themes were found related to anticipated mediation and use of smart glasses: attention, emotions, social influences, design, context, camera use, risks, comparisons to known products, and expected reaction and might influence the acceptance of smart glasses.
MULTIFILE
In this case study, we want to gain insight into how residents of three municipalities communicate about the new murder scenario of the cold case of Marianne Vaatstra and the possibility of a large-scale DNA familial searching. We investigate how stakeholders shape their arguments in conversation with each other and with the police. We analyze the statements that participants use to achieve certain effects in their interactions with others in three focus groups. The results show that the analyzed statements are strong normative orientated. We see two aspects emerge that affect the support for large-scale DNA familial searching. These are: 1. Cautious formulations: respondents showed restraint in making personal judgments and often formulated these on behalf of others. Participants would not fully express themselves, but adjusted to what seemed the socially desirable course. 2. Collective identity: respondents focused on the similarities between themselves and the needs, interests, and goals of other participants. Participants also tried in a discursive way to convince each other to participate in the large-scale familial searching. These two major discursive activities offered the communication discipline guidance for interventions into the subsequent communication strategy.
DOCUMENT
Background: Despite the growing importance of eHealth it is not consistently embedded in the curricula of functional exercise and physical therapy education. Insight in barriers and facilitators for embedding eHealth in education is required for the development of tailored strategies to implement eHealth in curricula. This study aims to identify barriers/facilitators perceived by teachers and students of functional exercise/physical therapy for uptake of eHealth in education. Methods: A qualitative study including six focus groups (two with teachers/four with students) was conducted to identify barriers/facilitators. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were identified, grouped and classified using a generally accepted framework for implementation including the following categories: innovation, individual teacher/student, social context, organizational context and political and economic factors. Results: Teachers (n = 11) and students (n = 24) of functional exercise/physical therapy faculties of two universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands participated in the focus groups. A total of 109 barriers/facilitators were identified during the focus groups. Most related to the Innovation category (n = 26), followed by the individual teacher (n = 22) and the organization (n = 20). Teachers and students identified similar barriers/facilitators for uptake of eHealth in curricula: e.g. unclear concept of eHealth, lack of quality and evidence for eHealth, (lack of) capabilities of students/teachers on how to use eHealth, negative/positive attitude of students/teachers towards eHealth. Conclusion: The successful uptake of eHealth in the curriculum of functional exercise/physical therapists needs a systematic multi-facetted approach considering the barriers and facilitators for uptake identified from the perspective of teachers and students. A relatively large amount of the identified barriers and facilitators were overlapping between teachers and students. Starting points for developing effective implementation strategies can potentially be found in those overlapping barriers and facilitators.
MULTIFILE
Buildings with innovative technologies and architectural solutions are needed as a means of support for future nursing homes alongside adequate care services. This study investigated how various groups of stakeholders from healthcare and technology envision the nursing home of the future in the presumed perspective of residents, care professionals and technical staff. This qualitative study gathered data via ten simultaneous monodisciplinary focus group sessions with 95 professional stakeholders. The sessions yielded eight main themes: person and well-being; relatives and interaction; care technology; safety and security; interior design, architecture and the built environment; vision and knowledge; communication; and maintenance and operation. These themes can be used for programming future nursing homes, and for prioritising design and technological solutions. The views between the groups of stakeholders are to a large extent similar, and the personal needs of the residents are the most prominent factor for practice.
DOCUMENT
The uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals. A qualitative focus group study with eight focus groups (6–8 participants per group) was conducted: six with stroke patients/informal caregivers and two with healthcare professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, managers). Focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed in full, and analyzed by direct content analysis using the implementation model of Grol. Results Thirty-two patients, 15 informal caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals were included. A total of 14 influencing factors were found, grouped to 5 of the 6 levels of the implementation model of Grol (Innovation, Organizational context, Individual patient, Individual professional, and Economic and political context). Most quotes of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals were classified to factors at the level of the Innovation (e.g., content, attractiveness, and feasibility of eRehabilitation programs). In addition, for patients, relatively many quotes were classified to factors at the level of the individual patient (e.g., patients characteristics as fatigue and the inability to understand ICT-devices), and for healthcare professionals at the level of the organizational context (e.g., having sufficient time and the fit with existing processes of care). Although there was a considerable overlap in reported factors between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals when it concerns eRehabilitation as innovation, its seems that patients/informal caregivers give more emphasis to factors related to the individual patient, whereas healthcare professionals emphasize the importance of factors related to the organizational context. This difference should be considered when developing an implementation strategy for patients and healthcare professionals separately. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0827-5
MULTIFILE
To obtain insight into facilitating factors for case management in dementia care, we conducted a qualitative study with 13 online focus groups (OFGs). Participants were professionals involved in dementia case management (N = 99). We used mind-maps and the method of constant comparison for analysis. Participants perceived OFGs as a useful tool to explore their perspectives. The perceived advantage of OFGs was the flexibility and convenience of logging in at any time or place preferred. Five facilitating factors for case management were identified in the OFGs: 1. Good cooperation between partners; 2. Organisational embedding with an independent position of case managers; 3. Structural funding; 4. Competent case managers; 5. Familiarity with case management in the region. Good cooperation was essential for successful dementia case management and should thus be a primary concern for care providers.
LINK
