Identifying Differences in Frames of Reference That Are Hard to Reconcile During the Process of Normative Integration to Deliver Care for People with Multiple Problems: A Mixed-Method Delphi Study in the Netherlands

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Integrated Care Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.5334/ijic.7583
Lieke Reinhoudt-den Boer, R. Huijsman, J. V. Van Wijngaarden
{"title":"Identifying Differences in Frames of Reference That Are Hard to Reconcile During the Process of Normative Integration to Deliver Care for People with Multiple Problems: A Mixed-Method Delphi Study in the Netherlands","authors":"Lieke Reinhoudt-den Boer, R. Huijsman, J. V. Van Wijngaarden","doi":"10.5334/ijic.7583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems? Methods: A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for people with multiple problems (PWMPs) worked towards consensus on appropriate care delivery through the assessment of 15 vignettes representing real trajectories of PWMPs. Results: No consensus on appropriate care delivery was reached on any of the 15 vignettes. Five differences in perspective explained the dissensus: 1) an individual versus a systemic perspective on the client; 2) a focus on self-expressed needs of clients or professionally assessed (normative) needs; 3) client-directed or caregiver-directed care; 4) client as victim of circumstances or responsible for circumstances; 5) a focus on barriers or opportunities. Conclusions: In general, panelists agreed that care for PWMPs should be integrated. However, the further integrated care was to be operationalized in practice the greater the dissensus between panelists emerged. To understand how these differences in perspectives may be overcome to provide care for PWMPs normative integration needs to be studied during actual processes of care delivery.","PeriodicalId":14049,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Integrated Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Integrated Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.7583","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems? Methods: A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for people with multiple problems (PWMPs) worked towards consensus on appropriate care delivery through the assessment of 15 vignettes representing real trajectories of PWMPs. Results: No consensus on appropriate care delivery was reached on any of the 15 vignettes. Five differences in perspective explained the dissensus: 1) an individual versus a systemic perspective on the client; 2) a focus on self-expressed needs of clients or professionally assessed (normative) needs; 3) client-directed or caregiver-directed care; 4) client as victim of circumstances or responsible for circumstances; 5) a focus on barriers or opportunities. Conclusions: In general, panelists agreed that care for PWMPs should be integrated. However, the further integrated care was to be operationalized in practice the greater the dissensus between panelists emerged. To understand how these differences in perspectives may be overcome to provide care for PWMPs normative integration needs to be studied during actual processes of care delivery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在为有多种问题的人提供护理的规范整合过程中,识别难以调和的参考框架差异:荷兰德尔菲混合方法研究
背景:整合护理通过系统、组织、专业和临床层面的整合(包括功能性整合和规范性整合)得到加强。有关这些不同层面的功能整合的研究很多,但关注如何进行规范整合的研究较少。在本研究中,我们关注的问题是:要就为有多种问题的人提供适当的护理达成共识,必须解决哪些参考框架上的差异?研究方法:我们开展了一项德尔菲法混合研究,通过评估 15 个代表多重问题患者真实轨迹的小故事,让经常参与多重问题患者护理工作的专业人员和管理人员就适当的护理服务达成共识。结果:在 15 个案例中,没有任何一个案例就适当的护理服务达成共识。五种不同的视角解释了为什么会出现意见分歧:1)从个人角度还是从系统角度看待客户;2)关注客户自我表达的需求还是专业评估(规范)的需求;3)客户指导的护理还是护理人员指导的护理;4)客户是环境的受害者还是环境的责任人;5)关注障碍还是机遇。结论:总体而言,专家小组成员一致认为,应为残疾人提供综合护理。然而,当综合护理在实践中越深入,小组成员之间的分歧就越大。为了了解如何克服这些观点上的差异,为残疾人提供护理,需要在实际提供护理的过程中对规范性整合进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Integrated Care
International Journal of Integrated Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
887
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 2000, IJIC’s mission is to promote integrated care as a scientific discipline. IJIC’s primary purpose is to examine critically the policy and practice of integrated care and whether and how this has impacted on quality-of-care, user experiences, and cost-effectiveness. The journal regularly publishes conference supplements and special themed editions. To find out more contact Managing Editor, Susan Royer. The Journal is supported by the International Foundation for Integrated Care (IFIC).
期刊最新文献
The Rutgers Integrated Care Evaluation (RICE) Research Framework: An Innovative and Rigorous Set of Methods to Evaluate Integrated Care Programs. Reimagining Day Rehabilitation For Frailty and Neurodegenerative Conditions through the integrated Rehabilitation and EnAblement Program (iREAP). Integrated Diagnosis in Africa's Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What Is It, What Works, and for Whom? A Realist Synthesis. Scale-Up of Integrated Care Interventions for Chronic Diseases in Diverse Settings. Assessing the Strengths and Weaknesses for Implementing a Place-Based Model of Care for Older People on the Central Coast, Australia: Results of a Pilot Project Using the Population Health Management Maturity Index (PHM-MI) Tool.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1