The co-production process of an assessment programme: Between clarifying identity and developing the quality of French-speaking Belgian community health centres.

Assessment programme Co-production process Community health centres French-speaking Belgium Multidisciplinary teams Primary care

Journal

Health research policy and systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101170481

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Feb 2024

Historique:

received: 11 07 2023

accepted: 24 01 2024

medline: 21 2 2024

pubmed: 21 2 2024

entrez: 20 2 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

The assessment of primary care organizations is considered to be essential for improving care. However, the assessments' acceptability to professionals poses a challenge. Developing assessment programmes in collaboration with the end-users is a strategy that is widely encouraged to make interventions better targeted. By doing so, it can help to prevent resistance and encourage adherence to the assessment. This process, however, is rarely reported. This paper aims to fill this gap by describing the process of the co-production of an assessment programme for community health centres (CHCs) affiliated to the Federation of Community Health Centres (FCHC) in French-speaking Belgium. We conducted a documentary study on the co-production of the assessment programme before carrying out semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved in its development. CHCs in French-speaking Belgium are increasing in number and are becoming more diverse. For the FCHC, this growth and diversification pose challenges for the meaning of CHC (an identity challenge) and what beneficiaries can expect in terms of the quality of organizations declaring themselves CHC (a quality challenge). Faced with this double challenge, the FCHC decided to develop an assessment programme, initially called Label, using participatory action research. During the co-production process, this initial programme version was abandoned in favour of a new name "DEQuaP". This new name embodies new objectives and new design regarding the assessment programme. When studying the co-production process, we attributed these changes to two controversies. The first concerns how much and which type of variety is desired among CHCs part of the FCHC. The second concerns the organization of the FCHC in its capacity as a federation. It shed light on tensions between two professional segments that, in this paper, we called "political professionalism" and "pragmatic professionalism". These controversies show the importance of underlying challenges behind the development of an assessment programme for CHCs. This provided information about the evolution of the identity of multidisciplinary organizations in primary care. Issues raised in the development of this assessment programme also show the importance of considering assessment methods that reflect and embody the current realities of these organizations and the way of developing these assessment methods.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS METHODS

We conducted a documentary study on the co-production of the assessment programme before carrying out semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved in its development.

RESULTS RESULTS

CHCs in French-speaking Belgium are increasing in number and are becoming more diverse. For the FCHC, this growth and diversification pose challenges for the meaning of CHC (an identity challenge) and what beneficiaries can expect in terms of the quality of organizations declaring themselves CHC (a quality challenge). Faced with this double challenge, the FCHC decided to develop an assessment programme, initially called Label, using participatory action research. During the co-production process, this initial programme version was abandoned in favour of a new name "DEQuaP". This new name embodies new objectives and new design regarding the assessment programme. When studying the co-production process, we attributed these changes to two controversies. The first concerns how much and which type of variety is desired among CHCs part of the FCHC. The second concerns the organization of the FCHC in its capacity as a federation. It shed light on tensions between two professional segments that, in this paper, we called "political professionalism" and "pragmatic professionalism".

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

These controversies show the importance of underlying challenges behind the development of an assessment programme for CHCs. This provided information about the evolution of the identity of multidisciplinary organizations in primary care. Issues raised in the development of this assessment programme also show the importance of considering assessment methods that reflect and embody the current realities of these organizations and the way of developing these assessment methods.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s12961-024-01112-y PMID: 38378581

pubmed: 38378581

doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01112-y

pii: 10.1186/s12961-024-01112-y

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

Informations de copyright

Références

Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502.

pubmed: 16202000 pmcid: 2690145 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x

Allen LN, Barkley S, De Maeseneer J, van Weel C, Kluge H, de Wit N, et al. Unfulfilled potential of primary care in Europe. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 2018;363: k4469.

doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4469

Macarayan EK, Gage AD, Doubova SV, Guanais F, Lemango ET, Ndiaye Y, et al. Assessment of quality of primary care with facility surveys: a descriptive analysis in ten low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Global Health. 2018;6(11):e1176–85.

pubmed: 30322648 doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30440-6

Fracolli LA, Gomes MF, Nabão FR, Santos MS, Cappellini VK, de Almeida AC. Primary health care assessment tools: a literature review and metasynthesis. Cien Saude Colet. 2014;19(12):4851–60.

pubmed: 25388193 doi: 10.1590/1413-812320141912.00572014

Rezapour R, Letaief M, Khosravi A, Farahbakhsh M, Ahmadnezhad E, Azami-Aghdash S, et al. Primary health care quality assessment frameworks: state of the art review. Health Scope. 2022;11(3): e126407.

doi: 10.5812/jhealthscope-126407

Katoue MG, Somerville SG, Barake R, Scott M. The perceptions of healthcare professionals about accreditation and its impact on quality of healthcare in Kuwait: a qualitative study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(6):1310–20.

pubmed: 33749091 doi: 10.1111/jep.13557

Bose S, Oliveras E, Edson WNE. How can self-assessment improve the quality of healthcare. Opera Res. 2001;2(4):1–27.

Kousgaard MB, Thorsen T, Due TD. Experiences of accreditation impact in general practice – a qualitative study among general practitioners and their staff. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):146.

pubmed: 31660860 pmcid: 6819337 doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-1034-4

Due TD, Thorsen T, Kousgaard MB. Understanding accreditation standards in general practice – a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):23.

pubmed: 30704399 pmcid: 6354356 doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0910-2

Waldorff FB, Nicolaisdóttir DR, Kousgaard MB, Reventlow S, Søndergaard J, Thorsen T, et al. Almost half of the Danish general practitioners have negative a priori attitudes towards a mandatory accreditation programme. Danish Med J. 2016;63(9):A5266.

Debono D, Greenfield D, Testa L, Mumford V, Hogden A, Pawsey M, et al. Understanding stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences of general practice accreditation. Health Policy. 2017;121(7):816–22.

pubmed: 28552272 doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.05.006

Bechar S, Mero-Jaffe I. Who is afraid of evaluation? Ethics in evaluation research as a way to cope with excessive evaluation anxiety: insights from a case study. Am J Eval. 2013;35:364–76.

doi: 10.1177/1098214013512555

Brewster L, Aveling E-L, Martin G, Tarrant C, Dixon-Woods M. What to expect when you’re evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities. BMJ Qual Safety. 2015;24:318–24.

doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003732

Knai C, Nolte E, Brunn M, Elissen A, Conklin A, Pedersen JP, et al. Reported barriers to evaluation in chronic care: experiences in six European countries. Health Policy. 2013;110(2–3):220–8.

pubmed: 23453595 doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.019

Bloy G, Rigal L. With tact and measure? French doctors wrestling with the idea of assessing their medical practice. Sociol Travail. 2013;55(1):24–47.

doi: 10.1016/j.soctra.2013.08.002

Stevahn L, King JA. Managing conflict constructively in program evaluation. Evaluation. 2005;11(4):415–27.

doi: 10.1177/1356389005059384

Colquhoun HL, Squires JE, Kolehmainen N, Fraser C, Grimshaw JM. Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):30.

pubmed: 28259168 pmcid: 5336662 doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0560-5

Croot L, O’Cathain A, Sworn K, Yardley L, Turner K, Duncan E, et al. Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;5(1):127.

pubmed: 31720005 pmcid: 6839208 doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0512-8

Cornwall A. Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse. Dev Pract. 2007;17(4–5):471–84.

doi: 10.1080/09614520701469302

Lawrence LM, Bishop A, Curran J. Integrated knowledge translation with public health policy makers: a scoping review. Healthc Policy. 2019;14(3):55–77.

pubmed: 31017866 pmcid: 7008688

Vat LE, Finlay T, Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar T, Fahy N, Robinson P, Boudes M, et al. Evaluating the “return on patient engagement initiatives” in medicines research and development: a literature review. Health Expect. 2020;23(1):5–18.

pubmed: 31489988 doi: 10.1111/hex.12951

Jasanoff S. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge; 2004.

doi: 10.4324/9780203413845

Ramaswamy R, Reed J, Livesley N, Boguslavsky V, Garcia-Elorrio E, Sax S, et al. Unpacking the black box of improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;30(Suppl_1):15–9.

pubmed: 29462325 pmcid: 5909642 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy009

Turner KM, Rousseau N, Croot L, Duncan E, Yardley L, O’Cathain A, et al. Understanding successful development of complex health and healthcare interventions and its drivers from the perspective of developers and wider stakeholders: an international qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5): e028756.

pubmed: 31152042 pmcid: 6549621 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028756

Duncan E, O’Cathain A, Rousseau N, Croot L, Sworn K, Turner KM, et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4): e033516.

pubmed: 32273313 pmcid: 7245409 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033516

Lam CY, Shulha LM. Insights on using developmental evaluation for innovating: a case study on the cocreation of an innovative program. Am J Eval. 2015;36(3):358–74.

doi: 10.1177/1098214014542100

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2008;337: a1655.

Sharkey S, Sharples A. From the beginning: negotiation in community evaluation. Evaluation. 2008;14(3):363–80.

doi: 10.1177/1356389008090860

La SM. qualité des soins, nouveau paradigme de l’action collective? [Quality of care, a new paradigm for collective action?]. Sociol Travail. 2000;42(1):51–68.

doi: 10.4000/sdt.36347

Hawkins J, Madden K, Fletcher A, Midgley L, Grant A, Cox G, et al. Development of a framework for the co-production and prototyping of public health interventions. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):689.

pubmed: 28870192 pmcid: 5583990 doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4695-8

Lemieux C. À quoi sert l’analyse des controverses ? [in French]. Mil neuf cent Revue d’histoire intellectuelle. 2007;25(1):191–212.

doi: 10.3917/mnc.025.0191

Cooke J, Mawson S. Working with knowledge users: 3.1 working with knowledge users. Amsterdam: Wiley; 2022. p. 74–90.

Staley K, Barron D. Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation? Res Involv Engage. 2019;5:14.

doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0147-1

Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):51.

pubmed: 32450919 pmcid: 7249434 doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9

Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.

pubmed: 32046728 pmcid: 7014755 doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2017;358: j3453.

doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453

Kendall C, Fitzgerald M, Kang RS, Wong ST, Katz A, Fortin M, et al. “Still learning and evolving in our approaches”: patient and stakeholder engagement among Canadian community-based primary health care researchers. Res Involve Engage. 2018;4:47.

doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0132-0

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.

pubmed: 22809132 doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x

Conklin A, Morris Z, Nolte E. What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect. 2015;18(2):153–65.

pubmed: 23252574 doi: 10.1111/hex.12038

Benamouzig D. L’évaluation des aspects sociaux en santé. La formation d’une expertise sociologique à la Haute Autorité de santé [in French]. Revue française des Affaires sociales. 2010;1:187–211.

doi: 10.3917/rfas.101.0187

Hoddinott P. A new era for intervention development studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015;1(1):36.

pubmed: 27965814 pmcid: 5153779 doi: 10.1186/s40814-015-0032-0

Scholz B, Bevan A. Toward more mindful reporting of patient and public involvement in healthcare. Res Involve Engage. 2021;7(1):61.

doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00308-8

Savoie-Zajc L. Du déroulement évolutif de la recherche-action au format linéaire l’écriture : quelques défis dans la rédaction et la diffusion de la recherche-action [in French]. Recherches Qualitatives. 2012:73–89.

Shekelle PG, Begashaw M. What are the effects of different team-based primary care structures on the quadruple aim of care? A rapid review. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2021.

Hendrick A, Moreau J. De A à Z, histoire(s) du mouvement des maisons médicales [in French]. Santé conjuguée. 2022;98.

Thunus S, Creten A, Donnen A, Walker Carole. Melting Point : L’accès et le recours aux soins de première ligne par les publics vulnérables, en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale [in French]. Observatoire de la Santé et du Social de Bruxelles-capitale; 2023.

Hughes M, Duffy C. Public involvement in health and social sciences research: a concept analysis. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1183–90.

pubmed: 30159960 pmcid: 6250854 doi: 10.1111/hex.12825

Law J. On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. Sociol Rev. 1984;32(S1):234–63.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00114.x

Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):189.

pubmed: 30909897 pmcid: 6432749 doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4015-3

Méadel C. Les controverses comme apprentissage [in French]. Hermès, La Revue. 2015;73(3):45–50.

doi: 10.3917/herm.073.0045

Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B. Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs [in French]: Presses des Mines; 2006.

Vezinat N. Les groupes professionnels au regard du couple intégration/exclusion [in French]. Sociologie des groupes professionnels. Paris Armand Colin; 2016. p. 15–27.

Weber M. Economie et société/2 : L’organisation et les puissances de la société dans leur rapport avec l’économie [in French]. Paris Plon; 1995. p. 425.

Champty F. La sociologie des professions [in French]: Presses Universitaires de France; 2012. p. 235.

Hénaut L, Marchal E, Castel P. Faire la concurrence: retour sur un phénomène social et économique [in French]: Presses des Mines via OpenEdition; 2017.

Bucher R, Strauss A. Professions in process. Am J Sociol. 1961;66:325–34.

doi: 10.1086/222898

Roland M, Mormont M. 1945–1990: maisons médicales, semailles et germination [in French]. Politique : revue belge d’analyse et de débat 2017;101.

Martinot-Lagarde P. De nouvelles formes d’engagement [in French]. Revue Project. 2008;305(4):48–54.

Jacques I, Spyros F, Pascal V. Militer aujourd’hui [in French]. Autrement ed. Paris. 2005. p. 139.

Ivaldi S, Scaratti G, Nuti G. The practice of evaluation as an evaluation of practices. Evaluation. 2015;21(4):497–512.

doi: 10.1177/1356389015606538

Timmermans S, Epstein S. A world of standards but not a standard world: toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Ann Rev Sociol. 2010;36:69–89.

doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629

Berquin A. Les soins de santé entre standardisation et personnalisation. Perspectives clinique, économique, éthique et anthropologique [in French]: Seli Arslan; 2009.

Champy F. La sociologie des professions [in French]: Presses universitaires de France 2018.

Cooke B, Kothari U. Participation: The new tyranny?: Zed books; 2001.

Plamondon K, Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Shahram S. 2.2 Equity, power, and transformative research coproduction. In Research Co‐Production in Healthcare. 2022. p. 34–53.

Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustainabil. 2020;42:15–21.

doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009

Darcis C, Schoenaers F, Thunus S. The Belgian mental health reform: when a combination of soft instruments hampers structural change. Governance. 2022;35(2):437–56.

doi: 10.1111/gove.12608