Cargando…

Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a 'virtual' (computer-mediated) approach to health research commissioning. This had been introduced experimentally in a DOH programme – the 'Health of Londoners Programme' – in order to assess whether i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCourt, Christine A, Morgan, Philip A, Youll, Penny
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1624829/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17049079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-4-9
_version_ 1782130570301538304
author McCourt, Christine A
Morgan, Philip A
Youll, Penny
author_facet McCourt, Christine A
Morgan, Philip A
Youll, Penny
author_sort McCourt, Christine A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a 'virtual' (computer-mediated) approach to health research commissioning. This had been introduced experimentally in a DOH programme – the 'Health of Londoners Programme' – in order to assess whether is could enhance the accessibility, transparency and effectiveness of commissioning health research. The study described here was commissioned to evaluate this novel approach, addressing these key questions. METHODS: A naturalistic-experimental approach was combined with principles of action research. The different commissioning groups within the programme were randomly allocated to either the traditional face-to-face mode or the novel 'virtual' mode. Mainly qualitative data were gathered including observation of all (virtual and face-to-face) commissioning meetings; semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants (n = 32/66); structured questionnaires and interviews with lead researchers of early commissioned projects. All members of the commissioning groups were invited to participate in collaborative enquiry groups which participated actively in the analysis process. RESULTS: The virtual process functioned as intended, reaching timely and relatively transparent decisions that participants had confidence in. Despite the potential for greater access using a virtual approach, few differences were found in practice. Key advantages included physical access, a more flexible and extended time period for discussion, reflection and information gathering and a more transparent decision-making process. Key challenges were the reduction of social cues available in a computer-mediated medium that require novel ways of ensuring appropriate dialogue, feedback and interaction. However, in both modes, the process was influenced by a range of factors and was not technology driven. CONCLUSION: There is potential for using computer-mediated communication within the research commissioning process. This may enhance access, effectiveness and transparency of decision-making but further development is needed for this to be fully realised, including attention to process as well as the computer-mediated medium.
format Text
id pubmed-1624829
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-16248292006-10-26 Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research McCourt, Christine A Morgan, Philip A Youll, Penny Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a 'virtual' (computer-mediated) approach to health research commissioning. This had been introduced experimentally in a DOH programme – the 'Health of Londoners Programme' – in order to assess whether is could enhance the accessibility, transparency and effectiveness of commissioning health research. The study described here was commissioned to evaluate this novel approach, addressing these key questions. METHODS: A naturalistic-experimental approach was combined with principles of action research. The different commissioning groups within the programme were randomly allocated to either the traditional face-to-face mode or the novel 'virtual' mode. Mainly qualitative data were gathered including observation of all (virtual and face-to-face) commissioning meetings; semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants (n = 32/66); structured questionnaires and interviews with lead researchers of early commissioned projects. All members of the commissioning groups were invited to participate in collaborative enquiry groups which participated actively in the analysis process. RESULTS: The virtual process functioned as intended, reaching timely and relatively transparent decisions that participants had confidence in. Despite the potential for greater access using a virtual approach, few differences were found in practice. Key advantages included physical access, a more flexible and extended time period for discussion, reflection and information gathering and a more transparent decision-making process. Key challenges were the reduction of social cues available in a computer-mediated medium that require novel ways of ensuring appropriate dialogue, feedback and interaction. However, in both modes, the process was influenced by a range of factors and was not technology driven. CONCLUSION: There is potential for using computer-mediated communication within the research commissioning process. This may enhance access, effectiveness and transparency of decision-making but further development is needed for this to be fully realised, including attention to process as well as the computer-mediated medium. BioMed Central 2006-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC1624829/ /pubmed/17049079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-4-9 Text en Copyright © 2006 McCourt et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
McCourt, Christine A
Morgan, Philip A
Youll, Penny
Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
title Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
title_full Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
title_fullStr Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
title_short Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
title_sort evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1624829/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17049079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-4-9
work_keys_str_mv AT mccourtchristinea evaluationofavirtualapproachtocommissioninghealthresearch
AT morganphilipa evaluationofavirtualapproachtocommissioninghealthresearch
AT youllpenny evaluationofavirtualapproachtocommissioninghealthresearch