A key informant "tree" as a tool for community oriented primary care. The Cleveland COPC Group.

Family practice research journal Pub Date : 1994-09-01
R L Williams, R Snider, M J Ryan
{"title":"A key informant \"tree\" as a tool for community oriented primary care. The Cleveland COPC Group.","authors":"R L Williams,&nbsp;R Snider,&nbsp;M J Ryan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although community oriented primary care (COPC) is conceptually appealing, lack of practical methodology has limited its application. To implement the initial portions of COPC, most practitioners need to have available inexpensive, quick methods of doing community assessment. Use of community members identified as key informants is one method for conducting the qualitative portion of a community assessment. A key informant \"tree\" was developed at an inner city health center to analyze its costs, benefits, and limitations as a tool for COPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a semi-structured format, 14 of 24 key informants were interviewed using open-ended, closed-ended, and rating questions. An analysis was conducted of the costs of this approach and of the responses received.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Planning and implementation of the tree took 6 hours of physician time and 8 hours of nonphysician time. Useful data was obtained from each of the different types of questions, although it appeared best suited to open-ended questions. Response bias was an important problem. The key informant approach appeared most useful with informal community leaders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With appropriate recognition of the potential biases, key informant trees appear to be a practical and clinically useful tool for the subjective portion of the community assessment component of COPC.</p>","PeriodicalId":77127,"journal":{"name":"Family practice research journal","volume":"14 3","pages":"273-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although community oriented primary care (COPC) is conceptually appealing, lack of practical methodology has limited its application. To implement the initial portions of COPC, most practitioners need to have available inexpensive, quick methods of doing community assessment. Use of community members identified as key informants is one method for conducting the qualitative portion of a community assessment. A key informant "tree" was developed at an inner city health center to analyze its costs, benefits, and limitations as a tool for COPC.

Methods: Using a semi-structured format, 14 of 24 key informants were interviewed using open-ended, closed-ended, and rating questions. An analysis was conducted of the costs of this approach and of the responses received.

Results: Planning and implementation of the tree took 6 hours of physician time and 8 hours of nonphysician time. Useful data was obtained from each of the different types of questions, although it appeared best suited to open-ended questions. Response bias was an important problem. The key informant approach appeared most useful with informal community leaders.

Conclusions: With appropriate recognition of the potential biases, key informant trees appear to be a practical and clinically useful tool for the subjective portion of the community assessment component of COPC.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为社区导向初级保健工具的关键信息源“树”。克利夫兰科普集团。
目的:虽然社区初级保健(COPC)在概念上很有吸引力,但缺乏实用的方法限制了其应用。为了实施COPC的初始部分,大多数从业者需要有可用的廉价、快速的社区评估方法。使用被确定为关键举报人的社区成员是进行社区评估定性部分的一种方法。在内城卫生中心开发了一个关键信息者“树”,以分析其作为COPC工具的成本、收益和局限性。方法:采用半结构化格式,对24名关键举报人中的14人进行开放式、封闭式和评分问题的访谈。对这一办法的费用和收到的答复进行了分析。结果:树的规划和实施花费医师时间6小时,非医师时间8小时。从每种不同类型的问题中都获得了有用的数据,尽管它似乎最适合开放式问题。反应偏差是一个重要的问题。关键信息提供者方法似乎对非正式社区领导人最有用。结论:通过对潜在偏差的适当认识,关键信息树似乎是COPC社区评估主观部分的实用和临床有用的工具。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Principles of survey research. Desirable features of qualitative research. Consideration of venue and vehicle in health behavior research with adolescents. Reliability of survey about immunization barriers in Minnesota. Should primary care physicians take care of diabetes?
×
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