Collaborative governance in the Quebec Cancer Network: a realist evaluation of emerging mechanisms of institutionalization, multi-level governance, and value creation using a longitudinal multiple case study design.
Cost analysis
Longitudinal case study
Network governance
Organizational research
Patient care experience
Realist evaluation
Resource utilization
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Oct 2019
25 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
21
08
2019
accepted:
09
10
2019
entrez:
27
10
2019
pubmed:
28
10
2019
medline:
15
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People living with and beyond cancer (PLC) receive various forms of specialty care at different locations and many interventions concurrently or over time. They are affected by the operation of professional and organizational silos. This results in undue delays in access, unmet needs, sub-optimal care experiences and clinical outcomes, and human and financial costs for PLCs and healthcare systems. National cancer control programs advocate organizing in a network to coordinate actions, solve fragmentation problems, and thus improve clinical outcomes and care experiences for every dollar invested. The variable outcomes of such networks and factors explaining them have been documented. Governance is the "missing link" for understanding outcomes. Governance refers to the coordination of collective action by a body in a position of authority in pursuit of a common goal. The Quebec Cancer Network (QCN) offers the opportunity to study in a natural environment how, why, by whom, for whom, and under what conditions collaborative governance contributes to practices that produce value-added outcomes for PLCs, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system. The study design consists of a longitudinal case study, with multiple nested cases (4 local networks nested in the QCN), mobilizing qualitative and quantitative data and mixed data from various sources and collected using different methods, using the realist evaluation approach. Qualitative data will be used for a thematic analysis of collaborative governance. Quantitative data from validated questionnaires will be analyzed to measure relational coordination and teamwork, care experience, clinical outcomes, and health-related health-related quality of life, as well as a cost analysis of service utilization. Associations between context, governance mechanisms, and outcomes will be sought. Robust data will be produced to support decision-makers to guide network governance towards optimized clinical outcomes and the reduction of the economic toxicity of cancer for PLCs and health systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
People living with and beyond cancer (PLC) receive various forms of specialty care at different locations and many interventions concurrently or over time. They are affected by the operation of professional and organizational silos. This results in undue delays in access, unmet needs, sub-optimal care experiences and clinical outcomes, and human and financial costs for PLCs and healthcare systems. National cancer control programs advocate organizing in a network to coordinate actions, solve fragmentation problems, and thus improve clinical outcomes and care experiences for every dollar invested. The variable outcomes of such networks and factors explaining them have been documented. Governance is the "missing link" for understanding outcomes. Governance refers to the coordination of collective action by a body in a position of authority in pursuit of a common goal. The Quebec Cancer Network (QCN) offers the opportunity to study in a natural environment how, why, by whom, for whom, and under what conditions collaborative governance contributes to practices that produce value-added outcomes for PLCs, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system.
METHODS/DESIGN
METHODS
The study design consists of a longitudinal case study, with multiple nested cases (4 local networks nested in the QCN), mobilizing qualitative and quantitative data and mixed data from various sources and collected using different methods, using the realist evaluation approach. Qualitative data will be used for a thematic analysis of collaborative governance. Quantitative data from validated questionnaires will be analyzed to measure relational coordination and teamwork, care experience, clinical outcomes, and health-related health-related quality of life, as well as a cost analysis of service utilization. Associations between context, governance mechanisms, and outcomes will be sought. Robust data will be produced to support decision-makers to guide network governance towards optimized clinical outcomes and the reduction of the economic toxicity of cancer for PLCs and health systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31653231
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4586-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4586-z
pmc: PMC6814997
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
752Subventions
Organisme : Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
ID : 265874
Références
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Apr;13(4):e353-e394
pubmed: 28326862
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010 Jan;65B(1):107-18
pubmed: 19414866
Health Policy. 2014 May;116(1):1-11
pubmed: 24485914
Health Care Manage Rev. 2015 Apr-Jun;40(2):116-25
pubmed: 24828004
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 Jan;20(1):96-98
pubmed: 34991072
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;150:31-9
pubmed: 26730879
J Eval Clin Pract. 2002 Aug;8(3):303-11; discussion 299-301
pubmed: 12164976
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2007 Oct;64(1):1-9
pubmed: 17613243
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2002 Aug;14(4):247-51
pubmed: 12462368
Health Care Manage Rev. 2011 Oct-Dec;36(4):315-26
pubmed: 21712725
J Oncol Pract. 2016 Nov;12(11):1012-1019
pubmed: 27650834
BMJ. 2007 Jan 6;334(7583):3-4
pubmed: 17107985
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2011 Feb;41(2):456-68
pubmed: 20832987
Aust J Rural Health. 2011 Dec;19(6):324-8
pubmed: 22098217
Health Policy. 2016 Jan;120(1):55-63
pubmed: 26712419
Healthc Manage Forum. 2015 Nov;28(6):242-6
pubmed: 26415714
Healthc Manage Forum. 2015 Nov;28(6):262-4
pubmed: 26347481
JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 01;3(5):686-694
pubmed: 28384684
Cancer. 2017 Feb 1;123(3):476-484
pubmed: 27716900
Clin Lung Cancer. 2017 Jul;18(4):388-395.e4
pubmed: 28111120
JAMA Oncol. 2017 May 1;3(5):677-685
pubmed: 28033439
J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(4):482-97
pubmed: 26045191
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
pubmed: 10625273
J Oncol Pract. 2015 May;11(3):231-8
pubmed: 25873059
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 21;11:39
pubmed: 27000152
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 28;15:425
pubmed: 26416612
Aust Health Rev. 2004;28(1):79-86
pubmed: 15525254
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;21(6):536-48
pubmed: 23567409
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2012 Aug;37(4):587-609
pubmed: 22466045
Healthc Policy. 2007 Feb;2(3):97-114
pubmed: 19305724
Int J Integr Care. 2018 Jan 31;18(1):11
pubmed: 29588645
Can J Aging. 2006 Spring;25(1):5-42
pubmed: 16770746
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Jun 1;32(5):710-722
pubmed: 28334991
Fam Med. 2011 Nov-Dec;43(10):731-4
pubmed: 22076717
Res Nurs Health. 2011 Apr;34(2):153-9
pubmed: 21381044
Am J Manag Care. 2000 Aug;6(8):881-6
pubmed: 11186500
Implement Sci. 2012 Mar 13;7:16
pubmed: 22414246
Implement Sci. 2008 Dec 17;3:56
pubmed: 19091110
J Clin Oncol. 1993 Mar;11(3):570-9
pubmed: 8445433
Support Care Cancer. 2006 Nov;14(11):1077-85
pubmed: 16896878
Sante Publique. 2015 May-Jun;27(3):303-4
pubmed: 26414130
F1000Res. 2016 Mar 16;5:361
pubmed: 27239275
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 20;28(27):4268-74
pubmed: 20585094
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Mar 12;13:15
pubmed: 25888822
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Mar 20;17(1):218
pubmed: 28320372
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Apr 15;49(2):156-63
pubmed: 12687505
Nurs Res. 1991 Nov-Dec;40(6):364-6
pubmed: 1956817
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012 May;2012(44):2-10
pubmed: 22623590
Health Soc Care Community. 2006 Sep;14(5):384-90
pubmed: 16918830
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):460-7
pubmed: 25234359
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Jun;24(6):2549-56
pubmed: 26694719