Cargando…

Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford

BACKGROUND: Commissioning and monitoring of community-based interventions is a challenge due to the complex nature of the environment and the lack of any explicit cut-offs to guide decision making. At what point, for example, is participant enrolment to interventions, course completion or satisfacti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bryant, M., Dharni, N., Dickerson, J., Willan, K., McEachan, R., Duffy, J., Howell, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31248396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7149-7
_version_ 1783430735879733248
author Bryant, M.
Dharni, N.
Dickerson, J.
Willan, K.
McEachan, R.
Duffy, J.
Howell, M.
author_facet Bryant, M.
Dharni, N.
Dickerson, J.
Willan, K.
McEachan, R.
Duffy, J.
Howell, M.
author_sort Bryant, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Commissioning and monitoring of community-based interventions is a challenge due to the complex nature of the environment and the lack of any explicit cut-offs to guide decision making. At what point, for example, is participant enrolment to interventions, course completion or satisfaction deemed to be acceptable or sufficient for continued funding? We aimed to identify and quantify key progression criteria for fourteen early years interventions by (1) agreeing the top three criteria for monitoring of successful implementation and progress; and (2) agreeing boundaries to categorise interventions as ‘meeting anticipated target’ (green); ‘falling short of targets’ (amber) and ‘targets not being met’ (red). METHODS: We ran three workshops in partnership with the UK’s Big Lottery Fund commissioned programme ‘Better Start Bradford’ (implementing more than 20 interventions to improve the health, wellbeing and development of children aged 0–3) to support decision making by agreeing progression criteria for the interventions being delivered. Workshops included 72 participants, representing a range of professional groups including intervention delivery teams, commissioners, intervention-monitoring teams, academics and community representatives. After discussion and activities, final decisions were submitted using electronic voting devices. All participants were invited to reconsider their responses via a post-workshop questionnaire. RESULTS: Three key progression criteria were assigned to each of the 14 interventions. Overall, criteria that participants most commonly voted for were recruitment, implementation and reach, but these differed according to each intervention. Cut-off values used to indicate when an intervention moved to ‘red’ varied by criteria; the lowest being for recruitment, where participants agreed that meeting less than 65% of the targeted recruitment would be deemed as ‘red’ (falling short of target). CONCLUSIONS: Our methodology for monitoring the progression of interventions has resulted in a clear pathway which will support commissioners and intervention teams in local decision making within the Better Start Bradford programme and beyond. This work can support others wishing to implement a formal system for monitoring the progression of public health interventions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6598271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65982712019-07-11 Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford Bryant, M. Dharni, N. Dickerson, J. Willan, K. McEachan, R. Duffy, J. Howell, M. BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Commissioning and monitoring of community-based interventions is a challenge due to the complex nature of the environment and the lack of any explicit cut-offs to guide decision making. At what point, for example, is participant enrolment to interventions, course completion or satisfaction deemed to be acceptable or sufficient for continued funding? We aimed to identify and quantify key progression criteria for fourteen early years interventions by (1) agreeing the top three criteria for monitoring of successful implementation and progress; and (2) agreeing boundaries to categorise interventions as ‘meeting anticipated target’ (green); ‘falling short of targets’ (amber) and ‘targets not being met’ (red). METHODS: We ran three workshops in partnership with the UK’s Big Lottery Fund commissioned programme ‘Better Start Bradford’ (implementing more than 20 interventions to improve the health, wellbeing and development of children aged 0–3) to support decision making by agreeing progression criteria for the interventions being delivered. Workshops included 72 participants, representing a range of professional groups including intervention delivery teams, commissioners, intervention-monitoring teams, academics and community representatives. After discussion and activities, final decisions were submitted using electronic voting devices. All participants were invited to reconsider their responses via a post-workshop questionnaire. RESULTS: Three key progression criteria were assigned to each of the 14 interventions. Overall, criteria that participants most commonly voted for were recruitment, implementation and reach, but these differed according to each intervention. Cut-off values used to indicate when an intervention moved to ‘red’ varied by criteria; the lowest being for recruitment, where participants agreed that meeting less than 65% of the targeted recruitment would be deemed as ‘red’ (falling short of target). CONCLUSIONS: Our methodology for monitoring the progression of interventions has resulted in a clear pathway which will support commissioners and intervention teams in local decision making within the Better Start Bradford programme and beyond. This work can support others wishing to implement a formal system for monitoring the progression of public health interventions. BioMed Central 2019-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6598271/ /pubmed/31248396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7149-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This 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
Bryant, M.
Dharni, N.
Dickerson, J.
Willan, K.
McEachan, R.
Duffy, J.
Howell, M.
Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford
title Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford
title_full Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford
title_fullStr Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford
title_full_unstemmed Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford
title_short Use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from Better Start Bradford
title_sort use of progression criteria to support monitoring and commissioning decision making of public health services: lessons from better start bradford
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6598271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31248396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7149-7
work_keys_str_mv AT bryantm useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford
AT dharnin useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford
AT dickersonj useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford
AT willank useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford
AT mceachanr useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford
AT duffyj useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford
AT howellm useofprogressioncriteriatosupportmonitoringandcommissioningdecisionmakingofpublichealthserviceslessonsfrombetterstartbradford