Cargando…
Using co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations
BACKGROUND: Navigating treatment pathways remains a challenge for populations with complex needs due to bottlenecks, service gaps and access barriers. The application of novel methods may be required to identify and remedy such problems. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying pers...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6803401/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31187600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12923 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Navigating treatment pathways remains a challenge for populations with complex needs due to bottlenecks, service gaps and access barriers. The application of novel methods may be required to identify and remedy such problems. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action. DESIGN: Co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community‐dwelling sample of older women living alone (OWLA), residing in Melbourne, Australia (n = 13‐37). Convenience sample of (n = 11) representatives from providers and patient organizations. INTERVENTIONS: Novel interventions co‐created to support health, well‐being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA. RESULTS: The co‐creation process generated a list of ten interventions. Both OWLA and stakeholders considered a broad range of criteria when evaluating the relative merits of these ten interventions and a “Do Nothing” alternative. Combining criterion weights with performance ratings yielded a consistent set of high priority interventions, with “Handy Help,” “Volunteer Drivers” and “Exercise Buddies” most highly ranked by both OWLA and stakeholder samples. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The present study described and demonstrated the use of multi‐criteria decision analysis to prioritize a set of novel interventions generated via a co‐creation process. Application of this approach can add community voice to the policy debate and begin to bridge the gap in service provision for underserved populations. |
---|