"It's a good idea, but…": a qualitative evaluation of the GoldiCare intervention in Norwegian home care services.

IF 2.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2025-01-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2024.1511772
Heike Fischer, Fredrik Klæboe Lohne, Marius Steiro Fimland, Skender Elez Redzovic
{"title":"\"It's a good idea, but…\": a qualitative evaluation of the GoldiCare intervention in Norwegian home care services.","authors":"Heike Fischer, Fredrik Klæboe Lohne, Marius Steiro Fimland, Skender Elez Redzovic","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2024.1511772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Addressing high levels of physical strain among Norwegian home care workers is crucial if home care services are to continue to provide cost-effective and high-quality health care for people in their homes. Excessive physical demands may contribute to poor long-term musculoskeletal health and high sick leave rates among home care workers. Based on the Goldilocks Work Principle of redistributing an uneven distribution of physical demands to promote a working environment with a \"just right\" physical demands conducive to promoting long-term health, the GoldiCare intervention in home care services was conducted. The objective of this qualitative process evaluation study was to gain insights into how the implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption and fidelity, respectively, impacted the implementation of the GoldiCare intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted ten individual interviews with operations managers and five focus group interviews with home care workers from the intervention units. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three step-content analysis was employed to analyze interview material.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis identified that although the intervention was considered broadly acceptable, there were several challenges corresponding to the dimensions of appropriateness, feasibility, adoption and fidelity. Major barriers were identified in particular with regard to appropriateness, that is underlying ways of measuring physical demands; and feasibility, that is barriers to implementing the tool. Further synthesis of these findings resulted in four core issues that need to be addressed if the GoldiCare intervention is to be successfully implemented in comparable Norwegian home care settings: proxy issues; complexity and unpredictability; organization-level issues; and operational autonomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings provide valuable insights for future attempts to implement GoldiCare interventions in home care settings, highlighting the need to further integrate GoldiCare and other comparable types of intervention into the political, economic, sociocultural, professional, and technological context of home care services. Performed in the right way, such integration will also allow for more participatory input from those enacting such interventions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This clinical trial was registered on 08/05/2022 under NCT05 487027.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"4 ","pages":"1511772"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789199/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1511772","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Addressing high levels of physical strain among Norwegian home care workers is crucial if home care services are to continue to provide cost-effective and high-quality health care for people in their homes. Excessive physical demands may contribute to poor long-term musculoskeletal health and high sick leave rates among home care workers. Based on the Goldilocks Work Principle of redistributing an uneven distribution of physical demands to promote a working environment with a "just right" physical demands conducive to promoting long-term health, the GoldiCare intervention in home care services was conducted. The objective of this qualitative process evaluation study was to gain insights into how the implementation outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption and fidelity, respectively, impacted the implementation of the GoldiCare intervention.

Methods: We conducted ten individual interviews with operations managers and five focus group interviews with home care workers from the intervention units. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three step-content analysis was employed to analyze interview material.

Results: Our analysis identified that although the intervention was considered broadly acceptable, there were several challenges corresponding to the dimensions of appropriateness, feasibility, adoption and fidelity. Major barriers were identified in particular with regard to appropriateness, that is underlying ways of measuring physical demands; and feasibility, that is barriers to implementing the tool. Further synthesis of these findings resulted in four core issues that need to be addressed if the GoldiCare intervention is to be successfully implemented in comparable Norwegian home care settings: proxy issues; complexity and unpredictability; organization-level issues; and operational autonomy.

Conclusion: The findings provide valuable insights for future attempts to implement GoldiCare interventions in home care settings, highlighting the need to further integrate GoldiCare and other comparable types of intervention into the political, economic, sociocultural, professional, and technological context of home care services. Performed in the right way, such integration will also allow for more participatory input from those enacting such interventions.

Trial registration: This clinical trial was registered on 08/05/2022 under NCT05 487027.

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
“这是个好主意,但是……”:对挪威家庭护理服务中GoldiCare干预的定性评价。
背景:如果家庭护理服务要继续为家中的人们提供具有成本效益和高质量的医疗保健,解决挪威家庭护理工作者的高度身体紧张问题至关重要。过度的体力需求可能导致长期肌肉骨骼健康状况不佳和家庭护理人员的高病假率。根据金凤花工作原理(Goldilocks Work Principle),重新分配身体需求的不均匀分布,以促进一个“恰到好处”的身体需求有利于促进长期健康的工作环境,对家庭护理服务进行了GoldiCare干预。本定性过程评估研究的目的是深入了解可接受性、适当性、可行性、采用性和保真度的实施结果分别如何影响GoldiCare干预措施的实施。方法:我们对干预单位的运营经理进行了10次个人访谈,对家庭护工进行了5次焦点小组访谈。访谈内容逐字记录,采用三步骤内容分析法分析访谈内容。结果:我们的分析表明,尽管干预措施被广泛接受,但在适当性、可行性、采用和保真度方面存在一些挑战。确定了主要障碍,特别是在适当性方面,这是衡量身体需求的基本方法;可行性,这是实施该工具的障碍。对这些发现的进一步综合得出了四个需要解决的核心问题,如果要在可比的挪威家庭护理环境中成功实施GoldiCare干预措施:代理问题;复杂性和不可预测性;企业级的问题;以及操作自主权。结论:研究结果为未来在家庭护理环境中实施GoldiCare干预措施提供了有价值的见解,强调了进一步将GoldiCare和其他类似类型的干预措施整合到家庭护理服务的政治、经济、社会文化、专业和技术背景中的必要性。如果以正确的方式进行,这种整合还将使制定这种干预措施的人能够提供更多的参与性投入。试验注册:该临床试验于2022年8月5日注册,编号为NCT05 487027。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fostering childhood prosociality and relatedness: the perceived impact of an arts-based philosophical intervention on collaboration, empathy and respect. Editorial: Responding to harm with compassion, accountability, and transparency. Impediments to transforming the healthcare delivery system: shifting the paradigm from provider centric to patient centric. Designing for implementation: a cognitive task analysis of intimate partner violence screening in hospital trauma care in Alberta, Canada. Digital job demands and healthcare workers' workplace well-being: the mediating role of job and personal resources.
×
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