Cargando…
Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial
BACKGROUND: Health professionals’ behaviour is a key component in compliance with evidence-based recommendations. Opinion leaders are an oft-used method of influencing such behaviours in implementation studies, but reliably and cost effectively identifying them is not straightforward. Survey and que...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015818/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-38 |
_version_ | 1782315405988069376 |
---|---|
author | Farley, Katherine Hanbury, Andria Thompson, Carl |
author_facet | Farley, Katherine Hanbury, Andria Thompson, Carl |
author_sort | Farley, Katherine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Health professionals’ behaviour is a key component in compliance with evidence-based recommendations. Opinion leaders are an oft-used method of influencing such behaviours in implementation studies, but reliably and cost effectively identifying them is not straightforward. Survey and questionnaire based data collection methods have potential and carefully chosen items can – in theory – both aid identification of opinion leaders and help in the design of an implementation strategy itself. This study compares two methods of identifying opinion leaders for behaviour-change interventions. METHODS: Healthcare professionals working in a single UK mental health NHS Foundation Trust were randomly allocated to one of two questionnaires. The first, slightly longer questionnaire, asked for multiple nominations of opinion leaders, with specific information about the nature of the relationship with each nominee. The second, shorter version, asked simply for a list of named “champions” but no more additional information. We compared, using Chi Square statistics, both the questionnaire response rates and the number of health professionals likely to be influenced by the opinion leaders (i.e. the “coverage” rates) for both questionnaire conditions. RESULTS: Both questionnaire versions had low response rates: only 15% of health professionals named colleagues in the longer questionnaire and 13% in the shorter version. The opinion leaders identified by both methods had a low number of contacts (range of coverage, 2–6 each). There were no significant differences in response rates or coverage between the two identification methods. CONCLUSIONS: The low response and population coverage rates for both questionnaire versions suggest that alternative methods of identifying opinion leaders for implementation studies may be more effective. Future research should seek to identify and evaluate alternative, non-questionnaire based, methods of identifying opinion leaders in order to maximise their potential in organisational behaviour change interventions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4015818 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40158182014-05-10 Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial Farley, Katherine Hanbury, Andria Thompson, Carl BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Health professionals’ behaviour is a key component in compliance with evidence-based recommendations. Opinion leaders are an oft-used method of influencing such behaviours in implementation studies, but reliably and cost effectively identifying them is not straightforward. Survey and questionnaire based data collection methods have potential and carefully chosen items can – in theory – both aid identification of opinion leaders and help in the design of an implementation strategy itself. This study compares two methods of identifying opinion leaders for behaviour-change interventions. METHODS: Healthcare professionals working in a single UK mental health NHS Foundation Trust were randomly allocated to one of two questionnaires. The first, slightly longer questionnaire, asked for multiple nominations of opinion leaders, with specific information about the nature of the relationship with each nominee. The second, shorter version, asked simply for a list of named “champions” but no more additional information. We compared, using Chi Square statistics, both the questionnaire response rates and the number of health professionals likely to be influenced by the opinion leaders (i.e. the “coverage” rates) for both questionnaire conditions. RESULTS: Both questionnaire versions had low response rates: only 15% of health professionals named colleagues in the longer questionnaire and 13% in the shorter version. The opinion leaders identified by both methods had a low number of contacts (range of coverage, 2–6 each). There were no significant differences in response rates or coverage between the two identification methods. CONCLUSIONS: The low response and population coverage rates for both questionnaire versions suggest that alternative methods of identifying opinion leaders for implementation studies may be more effective. Future research should seek to identify and evaluate alternative, non-questionnaire based, methods of identifying opinion leaders in order to maximise their potential in organisational behaviour change interventions. BioMed Central 2014-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4015818/ /pubmed/24606877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-38 Text en Copyright © 2014 Farley 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 credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Farley, Katherine Hanbury, Andria Thompson, Carl Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
title | Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
title_full | Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
title_fullStr | Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
title_short | Gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
title_sort | gathering opinion leader data for a tailored implementation intervention in secondary healthcare: a randomised trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015818/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-38 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farleykatherine gatheringopinionleaderdataforatailoredimplementationinterventioninsecondaryhealthcarearandomisedtrial AT hanburyandria gatheringopinionleaderdataforatailoredimplementationinterventioninsecondaryhealthcarearandomisedtrial AT thompsoncarl gatheringopinionleaderdataforatailoredimplementationinterventioninsecondaryhealthcarearandomisedtrial |