Cargando…

A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance

BACKGROUND: Organizational Participatory Research (OPR) seeks organizational learning and/or practice improvement. Previous systematic literature reviews described some OPR processes and outcomes, but the link between these processes and outcomes is unknown. We sought to identify and sequence the ke...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bush, Paula Louise, Pluye, Pierre, Loignon, Christine, Granikov, Vera, Wright, Michael T., Repchinsky, Carol, Haggerty, Jeannie, Bartlett, Gillian, Parry, Sharon, Pelletier, Jean-François, Macaulay, Ann C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3775-5
_version_ 1783404326876610560
author Bush, Paula Louise
Pluye, Pierre
Loignon, Christine
Granikov, Vera
Wright, Michael T.
Repchinsky, Carol
Haggerty, Jeannie
Bartlett, Gillian
Parry, Sharon
Pelletier, Jean-François
Macaulay, Ann C.
author_facet Bush, Paula Louise
Pluye, Pierre
Loignon, Christine
Granikov, Vera
Wright, Michael T.
Repchinsky, Carol
Haggerty, Jeannie
Bartlett, Gillian
Parry, Sharon
Pelletier, Jean-François
Macaulay, Ann C.
author_sort Bush, Paula Louise
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Organizational Participatory Research (OPR) seeks organizational learning and/or practice improvement. Previous systematic literature reviews described some OPR processes and outcomes, but the link between these processes and outcomes is unknown. We sought to identify and sequence the key processes of OPR taking place with and within healthcare organizations and the main outcomes to which they contribute, and to define ideal-types of OPR. METHODS: This article reports a participatory systematic mixed studies review with qualitative synthesis A specialized health librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Social Work Abstracts and Business Source Complete, together with grey literature data bases were searched from inception to November 29, 2012. This search was updated using forward citation tracking up to June 2014. Reporting quality was appraised and unclear articles were excluded. Included studies clearly reported OPR where the main research related decisions were co-constructed among the academic and healthcare organization partners. Included studies were distilled into summaries of their OPR processes and outcomes, which were subsequently analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. All summaries were analysed; that is, data analysis continued beyond saturation. RESULTS: Eighty-three studies were included from the 8873 records retrieved. Eight key OPR processes were identified. Four follow the phases of research: 1) form a work group and hold meetings, 2) collectively determine research objectives, 3) collectively analyse data, and 4) collectively interpret results and decide how to use them. Four are present throughout OPR: 1) communication, 2) relationships; 3) commitment; 4) collective reflection. These processes contribute to extra benefits at the individual and organizational levels. Four ideal-types of OPR were defined. Basic OPR consists of OPR processes leading to achieving the study objectives. This ideal-type and may be combined with any of the following three ideal-types: OPR resulting in random additional benefits for the individuals or organization involved, OPR spreading to other sectors of the organization and beyond, or OPR leading to subsequent initiatives. These results are illustrated with a novel conceptual model. CONCLUSION: The model provides operational guidance to help OPR stakeholders collaboratively address organizational issues and achieve desired outcomes and more. REVIEW REGISTRATION: As per PROSPERO inclusion criteria, this review is not registered. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3775-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6421946
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64219462019-03-28 A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance Bush, Paula Louise Pluye, Pierre Loignon, Christine Granikov, Vera Wright, Michael T. Repchinsky, Carol Haggerty, Jeannie Bartlett, Gillian Parry, Sharon Pelletier, Jean-François Macaulay, Ann C. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Organizational Participatory Research (OPR) seeks organizational learning and/or practice improvement. Previous systematic literature reviews described some OPR processes and outcomes, but the link between these processes and outcomes is unknown. We sought to identify and sequence the key processes of OPR taking place with and within healthcare organizations and the main outcomes to which they contribute, and to define ideal-types of OPR. METHODS: This article reports a participatory systematic mixed studies review with qualitative synthesis A specialized health librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Social Work Abstracts and Business Source Complete, together with grey literature data bases were searched from inception to November 29, 2012. This search was updated using forward citation tracking up to June 2014. Reporting quality was appraised and unclear articles were excluded. Included studies clearly reported OPR where the main research related decisions were co-constructed among the academic and healthcare organization partners. Included studies were distilled into summaries of their OPR processes and outcomes, which were subsequently analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis. All summaries were analysed; that is, data analysis continued beyond saturation. RESULTS: Eighty-three studies were included from the 8873 records retrieved. Eight key OPR processes were identified. Four follow the phases of research: 1) form a work group and hold meetings, 2) collectively determine research objectives, 3) collectively analyse data, and 4) collectively interpret results and decide how to use them. Four are present throughout OPR: 1) communication, 2) relationships; 3) commitment; 4) collective reflection. These processes contribute to extra benefits at the individual and organizational levels. Four ideal-types of OPR were defined. Basic OPR consists of OPR processes leading to achieving the study objectives. This ideal-type and may be combined with any of the following three ideal-types: OPR resulting in random additional benefits for the individuals or organization involved, OPR spreading to other sectors of the organization and beyond, or OPR leading to subsequent initiatives. These results are illustrated with a novel conceptual model. CONCLUSION: The model provides operational guidance to help OPR stakeholders collaboratively address organizational issues and achieve desired outcomes and more. REVIEW REGISTRATION: As per PROSPERO inclusion criteria, this review is not registered. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3775-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6421946/ /pubmed/30577859 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3775-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Bush, Paula Louise
Pluye, Pierre
Loignon, Christine
Granikov, Vera
Wright, Michael T.
Repchinsky, Carol
Haggerty, Jeannie
Bartlett, Gillian
Parry, Sharon
Pelletier, Jean-François
Macaulay, Ann C.
A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance
title A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance
title_full A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance
title_fullStr A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance
title_full_unstemmed A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance
title_short A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance
title_sort systematic mixed studies review on organizational participatory research: towards operational guidance
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421946/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3775-5
work_keys_str_mv AT bushpaulalouise asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT pluyepierre asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT loignonchristine asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT granikovvera asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT wrightmichaelt asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT repchinskycarol asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT haggertyjeannie asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT bartlettgillian asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT parrysharon asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT pelletierjeanfrancois asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT macaulayannc asystematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT bushpaulalouise systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT pluyepierre systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT loignonchristine systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT granikovvera systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT wrightmichaelt systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT repchinskycarol systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT haggertyjeannie systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT bartlettgillian systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT parrysharon systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT pelletierjeanfrancois systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance
AT macaulayannc systematicmixedstudiesreviewonorganizationalparticipatoryresearchtowardsoperationalguidance