Understanding professional advice networks in long-term care: an outside-inside view of best practice pathways for diffusion.
Attitude of Health Personnel
Canada
Counseling
Diffusion of Innovation
Female
Humans
Information Seeking Behavior
Interprofessional Relations
Interviews as Topic
/ statistics & numerical data
Leadership
Long-Term Care
/ standards
Male
Medical Informatics
/ statistics & numerical data
Motivation
Professional Practice
/ standards
Diffusion of innovations
Long-term care sector
Mixed methods
Professional advice seeking networks
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 01 2019
30 01 2019
Historique:
received:
20
07
2018
accepted:
17
01
2019
entrez:
1
2
2019
pubmed:
1
2
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Interpersonal relationships among professionals drive both the adoption and rejection of consequential innovations. Through relationships, decision-makers learn which colleagues are choosing to adopt innovations, and why. The purpose of our study was to understand how and why long-term care (LTC) leaders in a pan-Canadian interpersonal network provide and seek advice about care improvement innovations, for the eventual dissemination and implementation of these innovations. We used a mixed methods approach. An online survey was sent to senior leaders in 958 LTC facilities in 11 Canadian provinces and territories. Participants were asked to name up to three individuals whose advice they most value when considering care improvement and practice innovations. Sociometric analysis revealed the structure of provincial-level advice networks and how those networks were linked. Using sociometric indicators, we purposively selected 39 key network actors to interview to explore the nature of advice relationships. Data were analyzed thematically. In this paper, we report our qualitative findings. We identified four themes from the data. One theme related to characteristics of particular network roles: opinion leaders, advice seekers, and boundary spanners. Opinion leaders and boundary spanners have long tenures in LTC, a broad knowledge of the network, and share an interest in advancing the sector. Advice seekers were similarly committed to LTC; they initially seek and then, over time, exchange advice with opinion leaders and become an important source of information for them. A second theme related to characterizing advice seeking relationships as formal, peer-to-peer, mentoring, or reciprocal. The third and fourth themes described motivations for providing and seeking advice, and the nature of advice given and sought. Advice seekers initially sought information to resolve clinical care problems; however, over time, the nature of advice sought expanded to include operational and strategic queries. Opinion leaders sought to expand their networks and to solicit information from their more established advice seekers that might benefit the network and advance LTC. New knowledge about the distinct roles that different network actors play vis-a-vis one another offers healthcare professionals, researchers, and decision- and policy-makers insights that are useful when formulating best practice dissemination strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Interpersonal relationships among professionals drive both the adoption and rejection of consequential innovations. Through relationships, decision-makers learn which colleagues are choosing to adopt innovations, and why. The purpose of our study was to understand how and why long-term care (LTC) leaders in a pan-Canadian interpersonal network provide and seek advice about care improvement innovations, for the eventual dissemination and implementation of these innovations.
METHODS
We used a mixed methods approach. An online survey was sent to senior leaders in 958 LTC facilities in 11 Canadian provinces and territories. Participants were asked to name up to three individuals whose advice they most value when considering care improvement and practice innovations. Sociometric analysis revealed the structure of provincial-level advice networks and how those networks were linked. Using sociometric indicators, we purposively selected 39 key network actors to interview to explore the nature of advice relationships. Data were analyzed thematically.
RESULTS
In this paper, we report our qualitative findings. We identified four themes from the data. One theme related to characteristics of particular network roles: opinion leaders, advice seekers, and boundary spanners. Opinion leaders and boundary spanners have long tenures in LTC, a broad knowledge of the network, and share an interest in advancing the sector. Advice seekers were similarly committed to LTC; they initially seek and then, over time, exchange advice with opinion leaders and become an important source of information for them. A second theme related to characterizing advice seeking relationships as formal, peer-to-peer, mentoring, or reciprocal. The third and fourth themes described motivations for providing and seeking advice, and the nature of advice given and sought. Advice seekers initially sought information to resolve clinical care problems; however, over time, the nature of advice sought expanded to include operational and strategic queries. Opinion leaders sought to expand their networks and to solicit information from their more established advice seekers that might benefit the network and advance LTC.
CONCLUSIONS
New knowledge about the distinct roles that different network actors play vis-a-vis one another offers healthcare professionals, researchers, and decision- and policy-makers insights that are useful when formulating best practice dissemination strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30700316
doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0858-6
pii: 10.1186/s13012-019-0858-6
pmc: PMC6354382
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : MOP#318861
Pays : Canada
Références
Science. 2012 Jul 6;337(6090):49-53
pubmed: 22767921
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Jan;44(1 Suppl 2):S70-6
pubmed: 23253765
J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Jun;22(6):794-8
pubmed: 17404798
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Sep;93:194-202
pubmed: 22819737
Healthc Policy. 2014 Sep;10(Spec issue):132-44
pubmed: 25305396
Healthcare (Basel). 2016 Jan 04;4(1):
pubmed: 27417591
Implement Sci. 2017 Feb 3;12(1):11
pubmed: 28159009
Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629
pubmed: 15595944
Health Educ Behav. 2007 Dec;34(6):881-96
pubmed: 17602096
Res Soc Work Pract. 2009 Sep 1;19(5):503-518
pubmed: 20976022
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Feb;37(2):183-190
pubmed: 29401011
J Appl Psychol. 2000 Dec;85(6):987-95
pubmed: 11125661
J Appl Psychol. 2006 Jan;91(1):70-82
pubmed: 16435939
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Aug 10;(8):CD000125
pubmed: 21833939