Background: In recent years, researchers and evaluators have made efforts to identify and use appropriate and innovative research designs that account for the complexity in studying social accountability. The relationship between the researchers and those implementing the activities and how this impacts the study have received little attention. In this paper, we reflect on how we managed the relationship between researchers and implementers using the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluation of a complex intervention.
Main Body: The MRC guidance focuses on three areas of interaction between researchers and stakeholders involved in developing and delivering the intervention: (i) working with program developers and implementers; (ii) communication of emerging findings between researchers/evaluators and implementers; and (iii) overlapping roles of the intervention and research/evaluation. We summarize how the recommendations for each of the three areas were operationalized in the Community and Provider driven Social Accountability Intervention (CaPSAI) Project and provide reflections based on experience. We co-developed various tools, including standard operating procedures, contact lists, and manuals. Activities such as training sessions, regular calls, and meetings were also conducted to enable a good working relationship between the different partners.
Conclusions: Studying social accountability requires the collaboration of multiple partners that need to be planned to ensure a good working relationship while safeguarding both the research and intervention implementation. The MRC guidance is a useful tool for making interaction issues explicit and establishing procedures. Planning procedures for dealing with research and implementers' interactions could be more comprehensive and better adapted to social accountability interventions if both researchers and implementers are involved. There is a need for social accountability research to include clear statements explaining the nature and types of relationships between researchers and implementers involved in the intervention.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632007 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01718-0 | DOI Listing |
Alzheimers Dement
December 2024
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Background: Best practice recommendations suggest a person close to a patient with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia be involved in their care. This person is often referred to as a "caregiver," though the term "care partner" has increasingly been used in research and care instead of "caregiver." Unlike "caregiver," "care partner" suggests a collaborative relationship between the patient and their support person, in which the patient actively participates rather than passively receives help.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAlzheimers Dement
December 2024
Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Background: Data-driven criteria for DNA testing were implemented in routine care of Alzheimer Center Amsterdam. We aimed to explore patients' perspectives and considerations regarding their decision to (not) be tested for a monogenic cause of their disease.
Methods: In this mixed method study, 150 of 519 new patients visiting Alzheimer Center Amsterdam who fulfilled the criteria were offered DNA-diagnostics: 86(57%) accepted, 64(43%) did not.
Psychosoc Interv
January 2025
Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center University of Granada Spain Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC); University of Granada, Spain.
Exposing women to intimate partner violence (IPV) poses a risk to their physical and mental health, necessitating that they leave the relationship. However, women face various obstacles in doing so, such as cognitive distortions that affect their interpretation of the reality of violence, trapping them and significantly influencing their decision to leave. This scoping review explores, synthesizes, and analyzes the available evidence on the relationship between cognitive distortions and decision-making among women involved in IPV.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMC Geriatr
January 2025
Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Background: The Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized controlled trial showed that a workshop and 10-week park-based outdoor walk group (OWG) was superior to the workshop and 10 weekly reminders (WR) with increasing walking capacity, but not outdoor walking activity, health-promoting behavior, or successful aging, among older adults with difficulty walking outdoors. The objective of this planned process evaluation was to explore participants' perceptions of mechanisms of impact of and contextual factors influencing experiences with the interventions to help explain the observed intervention effects on study outcomes.
Methods: A qualitative descriptive study involving semi-structured interviews conducted at 6-months post-baseline was conducted.
Health Syst Reform
December 2024
World Health Organization (WHO), HQ, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cross-programmatic inefficiencies are duplications or misalignments that arise from undue fragmentation of health systems by vertical health programs. Identifying and addressing the root causes of cross-programmatic inefficiencies in a health system can ensure more efficient use of resources to make progress toward Universal Health Coverage. This paper examines the root causes of cross-programmatic inefficiencies related to governance and financing in the state health system of Anambra in southeast Nigeria.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!