Suchergebnisse

Although researchers have not always recognized the value of engaging children in qualitative studies, it is now widely accepted that interviews and focus groups with children can provide a rich understanding of family life. As qualitative research with children continues to mount, the literature explicating good practice for conducting interviews and focus groups with children has not kept pace. Differences between children and adults need to be considered throughout the interview process. Researchers need guidance in flexibly adapting their methods to match children's developing cognitive, linguistic, social, and psychological competencies. This article draws on extant literature and lessons learned by a novice qualitative researcher to provide concrete recommendations for conducting interviews and focus groups with school‐age children.

InChristoph Wetzel's 1988 painting,An Everyday Story, the divided canvas proudly depicts women's accomplishments in the German Democratic Republic (Figure 1). On one side, a woman operates a large piece of heavy machinery in a rolling mill, cool and competent behind the enormous mass of metal and gears. On the other side, the same woman helps her two children prepare for school in the morning. In the act of combing her daughter's hair, she looks out directly at the viewer, her expression asking: "And what are you surprised at?" This painting, displayed as part of a 1995 exposition on art commissioned by government agencies in the GDR, graphically displays that government's ideological commitment to women's paid labor, especially in jobs that, in capitalist societies, are often thought to be inappropriate for women.

INTRODUCTION: Canadians have had legal access to medical assistance in dying (MAiD) since 2016. However, despite substantial overlap in populations who request MAiD and who require palliative care (PC) services, policies and recommended practices regarding the optimal relationship between MAiD and PC services are not well developed. Multiple models are possible, including autonomous delivery of these services and formal or informal coordination, collaboration or integration. However, it is not clear which of these approaches are most appropriate, feasible or acceptable in different Canadian health settings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the post-pandemic period. The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the attitudes and opinions of key stakeholders from the government, health system, patient groups and academia in Canada regarding the optimal relationship between MAiD and PC services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach will elicit stakeholder feedback of 25–30 participants using semistructured interviews. Stakeholders with expertise and engagement in MAiD or PC who hold leadership positions in their respective organisations across Canada will be invited to provide their perspectives on the relationship between MAiD and PC; capacity-building needs; policy development opportunities; and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relationship between MAiD and PC services. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis. A framework for integrated health services will be used to assess the impact of integrating services on multiple levels. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (No 19-5518; Toronto, Canada). All participants will be required to provide informed electronic consent before a qualitative interview is scheduled, and to provide verbal consent prior to the start of the qualitative interview. Findings from this study could inform healthcare policy, the delivery of ...

Priority setting and resource allocation, or PSRA, are key functions of executive teams in healthcare organizations. Yet decision-makers often base their choices on historical patterns of resource distribution or political pressures. Our aim was to provide leaders with guidance on how to improve PSRA practice, by creating organizational contexts which enable high performance. We carried out in-depth case studies of six Canadian healthcare organizations to obtain from healthcare leaders their understanding of the concept of high performance in PSRA and the factors which contribute to its achievement. Individual and group interviews were carried out (n = 62) with senior managers, middle managers and Board members. Site observations and document review were used to assist researchers in interpreting the interview data. Qualitative data were analyzed iteratively with the literature on empirical examples of PSRA practice, in order to develop a framework of high performance in PSRA. The framework consists of four domains - structures, processes, attitudes and behaviours, and outcomes - within which are 19 specific elements. The emergent themes derive from case studies in different kinds of health organizations (urban/rural, small/large) across Canada. The elements can serve as a checklist for 'high performance' in PSRA. This framework provides a means by which decision-makers in healthcare might assess their practice and identify key areas for improvement. The findings are likely generalizable, certainly within Canada but also across countries. This work constitutes, to our knowledge, the first attempt to present a full package of elements comprising high performance in health care PSRA.

Background: Resource allocation is a key challenge for healthcare decision makers. While several case studies of organizational practice exist, there have been few large-scale cross-organization comparisons. Methods Between January and April 2011, we conducted an on-line survey of senior decision makers within regional health authorities (and closely equivalent organizations) across all Canadian provinces and territories. We received returns from 92 individual managers, from 60 out of 89 organizations in total. The survey inquired about structures, process features, and behaviours related to organization-wide resource allocation decisions. We focus here on three main aspects: type of process, perceived fairness, and overall rating. Results About one-half of respondents indicated that their organization used a formal process for resource allocation, while the others reported that political or historical factors were predominant. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents self-reported that their resource allocation process was fair and just over one-half assessed their process as 'good' or 'very good'. This paper explores these findings in greater detail and assesses them in context of the larger literature. Conclusion Data from this large-scale cross-jurisdictional survey helps to illustrate common challenges and areas of positive performance among Canada's health system leadership teams. ; Population and Public Health (SPPH), School of ; Non UBC ; Medicine, Faculty of ; Reviewed ; Faculty

Abstract Background Resource allocation is a key challenge for healthcare decision makers. While several case studies of organizational practice exist, there have been few large-scale cross-organization comparisons. Methods Between January and April 2011, we conducted an on-line survey of senior decision makers within regional health authorities (and closely equivalent organizations) across all Canadian provinces and territories. We received returns from 92 individual managers, from 60 out of 89 organizations in total. The survey inquired about structures, process features, and behaviours related to organization-wide resource allocation decisions. We focus here on three main aspects: type of process, perceived fairness, and overall rating. Results About one-half of respondents indicated that their organization used a formal process for resource allocation, while the others reported that political or historical factors were predominant. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents self-reported that their resource allocation process was fair and just over one-half assessed their process as 'good' or 'very good'. This paper explores these findings in greater detail and assesses them in context of the larger literature. Conclusion Data from this large-scale cross-jurisdictional survey helps to illustrate common challenges and areas of positive performance among Canada's health system leadership teams.

This article reviews theoretical and practical approaches for setting priorities in global child health research investments. It also provides an overview of previous attempts to develop appropriate tools and methodologies to define priorities in health research investments. A brief review of the most important theoretical concepts that should govern priority setting processes is undertaken, showing how different perspectives, such as medical, economical, legal, ethical, social, political, rational, philosophical, stakeholder driven, and others will necessarily conflict each other in determining priorities. We specially address present research agenda in global child health today and how it relates to United Nation's (UN) Millennium Development Goal 4, which is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. The outcomes of these former approaches are evaluated and their benefits and shortcomings presented. The case for a new methodology for setting priorities in health research investments is presented, as proposed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, and a need for its implementation in global child health is outlined. A transdisciplinary approach is needed to address all the perspectives from which investments into health research can be seen as priorities. This prioritization requires a process that is transparent, systematic, and that would take into account many perspectives and build on advantages of previous approaches.

This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global.