Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study.

IF 2 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-03-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.29
Kelly A Aschbrenner, Callie Walsh-Bailey, Meagan C Brown, Tanveer Khan, Travis P Baggett, Salene M W Jones, Douglas E Levy, Lydia E Pace, Jonathan P Winickoff
{"title":"Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study.","authors":"Kelly A Aschbrenner, Callie Walsh-Bailey, Meagan C Brown, Tanveer Khan, Travis P Baggett, Salene M W Jones, Douglas E Levy, Lydia E Pace, Jonathan P Winickoff","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in research across different phases of implementation research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative focus group and consensus building study involved researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control program and nine Community Health Centers (CHCs) in Massachusetts. Six focus groups (n = 3 with CHC staff; <i>n</i> = 3 with researchers) assessed barriers and facilitators to staff participation in implementation research. During consensus discussions, we used findings to develop considerations for engaging staff as participants and partners throughout phases of implementation research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen researchers and 14 staff participated in separate focus groups; nine researchers and seven staff participated in separate consensus discussions. Themes emerged across participant groups in three domains: (1) influences on research participation; (2) research burdens and benefits; and (3) ways to facilitate staff participation in research. Practical considerations included: (a) aligning research with organizational and staff values and priorities; (b) applying user-centered design to research methods; (c) building organizational and individual research capacity; and (d) offering equitable incentives for staff participation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Engaging staff as participants and partners across different phases of implementation research requires knowledge about what contributes to research burden and benefits and addressing context-specific burdens and benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11975774/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in research across different phases of implementation research.

Methods: This qualitative focus group and consensus building study involved researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control program and nine Community Health Centers (CHCs) in Massachusetts. Six focus groups (n = 3 with CHC staff; n = 3 with researchers) assessed barriers and facilitators to staff participation in implementation research. During consensus discussions, we used findings to develop considerations for engaging staff as participants and partners throughout phases of implementation research.

Results: Sixteen researchers and 14 staff participated in separate focus groups; nine researchers and seven staff participated in separate consensus discussions. Themes emerged across participant groups in three domains: (1) influences on research participation; (2) research burdens and benefits; and (3) ways to facilitate staff participation in research. Practical considerations included: (a) aligning research with organizational and staff values and priorities; (b) applying user-centered design to research methods; (c) building organizational and individual research capacity; and (d) offering equitable incentives for staff participation.

Conclusions: Engaging staff as participants and partners across different phases of implementation research requires knowledge about what contributes to research burden and benefits and addressing context-specific burdens and benefits.

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
在资源有限的医疗保健环境中让工作人员参与实施研究的实际考虑:一项定性焦点小组和建立共识的研究。
背景:本研究的主要目的是评估在资源有限的医疗机构工作的工作人员参与实施研究的感知负担和收益。另一个目标是利用调查结果来考虑让工作人员参与执行研究不同阶段的研究。方法:本定性焦点小组和共识建立研究涉及美国国家癌症研究所癌症控制项目实施科学中心和马萨诸塞州9个社区卫生中心的研究人员。6个焦点小组(n = 3,有CHC工作人员;N = 3(研究人员)评估了员工参与实施研究的障碍和促进因素。在协商一致的讨论过程中,我们利用调查结果制定了在实施研究的各个阶段让员工作为参与者和合作伙伴的考虑因素。结果:16名研究人员和14名工作人员参加了单独的焦点小组;9名研究人员和7名工作人员分别参加了共识讨论。参与者群体在三个领域中出现的主题:(1)对研究参与的影响;(2)研究负担与效益;(3)促进员工参与研究的途径。实际考虑包括:(a)使研究符合组织和工作人员的价值观和优先事项;(b)在研究方法上采用以用户为中心的设计;(c)建立组织和个人的研究能力;(d)为工作人员的参与提供公平的奖励。结论:在实施研究的不同阶段,让工作人员作为参与者和合作伙伴参与,需要了解造成研究负担和效益的因素,并解决具体情况下的负担和效益。
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
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Characteristics of participants in the national research mentoring network studies - CORRIGENDUM. A critical juncture: Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows. Cooperative extension and academic departments partnership: Translating nutrition science messages to diverse audiences. Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Tissue Regeneration Consortium (DOCTRC): An infrastructure for accelerating regenerative therapies from discovery to clinical impact. Using a participation monitoring database to enhance recruitment in a rare cancer population.
×
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