Opening the black box of health systems performance management using the behaviour change techniques taxonomy: implications for health research and practice.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Research Policy and Systems Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1186/s12961-025-01284-1
Jenna M Evans, Sarah M Wheeler
{"title":"Opening the black box of health systems performance management using the behaviour change techniques taxonomy: implications for health research and practice.","authors":"Jenna M Evans, Sarah M Wheeler","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01284-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Performance management (PM) systems in healthcare consist of many interacting interventions, such as contracts, scorecards and incentives. The diversity, complexity and poor description of PM interventions hampers replication in research, standardized comparative analysis and accumulation of evidence. Specifying PM systems and interventions in terms of their behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using standardized language can address these challenges and clarify the mechanisms linking system-level PM with individual behaviours.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an analysis of BCTs in a PM system in Ontario, Canada using a modified behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTT). We reviewed 64 documents, observed 15 meetings and conducted 4 semi-structured interviews with key informants to map the PM interventions on to the taxonomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 54 BCTs spanning 13 taxonomy domains in the PM system. BCTs were concentrated in four domains: (1) goals and planning, (2) reward and threat, (3) feedback and monitoring and (4) identity. The BCTs coded most often included: (1) discrepancy between current behaviour and goal, (2) feedback on outcome(s) of behaviour, (3) social comparison and (4) social incentive/reward. These BCTs suggest that this PM system seeks to change behaviour primarily by directing programme attention to their current performance in relation to the target and in relation to other programs across the province, and by acknowledging good performance with praise or recognition. A total of five PM interventions accounted for 58% of identified BCTs - the scorecard, quarterly performance review reports, quarterly performance review meetings, escalation letter for poor or declining performance and the improvement action plan.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results provide a unique analytical and evaluative characterization of the PM system, revealing how a behaviour-change lens on health systems PM can support the (re)design, standardized comparison, and evaluation of PM systems in research and in practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792694/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01284-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Performance management (PM) systems in healthcare consist of many interacting interventions, such as contracts, scorecards and incentives. The diversity, complexity and poor description of PM interventions hampers replication in research, standardized comparative analysis and accumulation of evidence. Specifying PM systems and interventions in terms of their behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using standardized language can address these challenges and clarify the mechanisms linking system-level PM with individual behaviours.

Methods: We conducted an analysis of BCTs in a PM system in Ontario, Canada using a modified behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTT). We reviewed 64 documents, observed 15 meetings and conducted 4 semi-structured interviews with key informants to map the PM interventions on to the taxonomy.

Results: We identified 54 BCTs spanning 13 taxonomy domains in the PM system. BCTs were concentrated in four domains: (1) goals and planning, (2) reward and threat, (3) feedback and monitoring and (4) identity. The BCTs coded most often included: (1) discrepancy between current behaviour and goal, (2) feedback on outcome(s) of behaviour, (3) social comparison and (4) social incentive/reward. These BCTs suggest that this PM system seeks to change behaviour primarily by directing programme attention to their current performance in relation to the target and in relation to other programs across the province, and by acknowledging good performance with praise or recognition. A total of five PM interventions accounted for 58% of identified BCTs - the scorecard, quarterly performance review reports, quarterly performance review meetings, escalation letter for poor or declining performance and the improvement action plan.

Conclusions: The results provide a unique analytical and evaluative characterization of the PM system, revealing how a behaviour-change lens on health systems PM can support the (re)design, standardized comparison, and evaluation of PM systems in research and in practice.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
利用行为改变技术分类法打开卫生系统绩效管理的黑匣子:对卫生研究和实践的影响。
背景:医疗保健中的绩效管理(PM)系统包括许多相互作用的干预措施,如合同、记分卡和激励措施。PM干预措施的多样性、复杂性和缺乏描述阻碍了研究的复制、标准化的比较分析和证据的积累。使用标准化语言根据行为改变技术(bct)指定项目管理系统和干预措施,可以解决这些挑战,并阐明将系统级项目管理与个人行为联系起来的机制。方法:我们在加拿大安大略省的PM系统中使用改进的行为改变技术分类法(BCTT)对bct进行了分析。我们审查了64份文件,观察了15次会议,并与关键信息提供者进行了4次半结构化访谈,以将PM干预措施映射到分类中。结果:我们在PM系统中鉴定出54个bct,跨越13个分类域。bct集中在四个领域:(1)目标与计划,(2)奖励与威胁,(3)反馈与监控,(4)身份。最常编码的btc包括:(1)当前行为与目标之间的差异,(2)对行为结果的反馈,(3)社会比较和(4)社会激励/奖励。这些btc表明,项目管理系统主要通过将项目的注意力引导到与目标和全省其他项目相关的当前绩效上,并通过表扬或认可来承认良好的绩效,从而寻求改变行为。共有五种PM干预占已确定的btc的58% -记分卡,季度绩效审查报告,季度绩效审查会议,表现不佳或下降的升级信和改进行动计划。结论:研究结果为项目管理系统提供了独特的分析和评价特征,揭示了卫生系统项目管理的行为改变视角如何能够支持研究和实践中项目管理系统的(重新)设计、标准化比较和评估。
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
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
期刊最新文献
Early career research capacity-building for the health and social care workforce: process evaluation of internships and fellowships provided through a research-practice partnership. Rapid expansion of the Frontline Field Epidemiology Training Program across 124 districts in India, 2021-2023. Progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases in India: national challenges and implications for global health policies. The use of research evidence in blood collection policy and practice: a qualitative study with frontline staff, middle managers and senior managers. How do clinical networks operationalize safety and quality stewardship? A qualitative study of Australian clinical networks.
×
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:604180095
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