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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |