Experiences of participants in the co-design of a community-based health service for people with high healthcare service use.
Co-design
Health services
High healthcare service utilisation
Patient-centred care
Qualitative research
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:
14 Mar 2024
14 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
26
09
2023
accepted:
26
02
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
15
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Incorporating perspectives of health consumers, healthcare workers, policy makers and stakeholders through co-design is essential to design services that are fit for purpose. However, the experiences of co-design participants are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of people involved in the co-design of a new service for people with high healthcare service utilisation. A methodology informed by the principles of grounded theory was used in this qualitative study to evaluate the experiences and perceptions of co-design participants. Participants were healthcare professionals, health managers and leaders and health consumers involved in the co-design of the new service in Tasmania, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were iteratively and concurrently collected and analysed using constant comparative analysis. Audio/audio-visual recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts, memos, and an audit trail were coded for experiences and perspectives of participants. There were thirteen participants (5 health professionals, 6 health managers and leaders, and 2 health consumers). Codes were collapsed into six sub-themes and six themes. Themes were bureaucracy hinders co-design, importance of consumers and diversity, importance of a common purpose, relationships are integral, participants expectations inform their co-design experience and learning from co-design. Most participants reported positive aspects such as having a common purpose, valuing relationships, and having a personal motivation for participating in co-design. However, there were factors which hindered the adaptation of co-design principles and the co-design process. Our research highlights that bureaucracy can hinder co-design, that including people with lived experience is essential and the need to consider various types of diversity when assembling co-design teams. Future co-design projects could use these findings to improve the co-design experience for participants, and ultimately the outcome for communities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Incorporating perspectives of health consumers, healthcare workers, policy makers and stakeholders through co-design is essential to design services that are fit for purpose. However, the experiences of co-design participants are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of people involved in the co-design of a new service for people with high healthcare service utilisation.
METHODS
METHODS
A methodology informed by the principles of grounded theory was used in this qualitative study to evaluate the experiences and perceptions of co-design participants. Participants were healthcare professionals, health managers and leaders and health consumers involved in the co-design of the new service in Tasmania, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were iteratively and concurrently collected and analysed using constant comparative analysis. Audio/audio-visual recordings of interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts, memos, and an audit trail were coded for experiences and perspectives of participants.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were thirteen participants (5 health professionals, 6 health managers and leaders, and 2 health consumers). Codes were collapsed into six sub-themes and six themes. Themes were bureaucracy hinders co-design, importance of consumers and diversity, importance of a common purpose, relationships are integral, participants expectations inform their co-design experience and learning from co-design.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Most participants reported positive aspects such as having a common purpose, valuing relationships, and having a personal motivation for participating in co-design. However, there were factors which hindered the adaptation of co-design principles and the co-design process. Our research highlights that bureaucracy can hinder co-design, that including people with lived experience is essential and the need to consider various types of diversity when assembling co-design teams. Future co-design projects could use these findings to improve the co-design experience for participants, and ultimately the outcome for communities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38486164
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10788-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-10788-5
pmc: PMC10938828
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
339Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Appl Ergon. 2015 Jan;46 Pt A:115-23
pubmed: 25124394
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):223-31
pubmed: 23381514
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626-32
pubmed: 26993640
Health Expect. 2021 May;24 Suppl 1:147-160
pubmed: 32529748
Health Expect. 2021 Jun;24(3):905-916
pubmed: 33729653
Health Expect. 2020 Apr;23(2):358-367
pubmed: 31999883
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):298-306
pubmed: 30729621
J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct 31;13(12):853-859
pubmed: 30379144
Health Expect. 2021 Oct;24(5):1551-1556
pubmed: 34339528
Implement Sci. 2018 Jul 26;13(1):98
pubmed: 30045735
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 11;7(7):e014650
pubmed: 28701409
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Sep 7;20(1):332
pubmed: 32894056
Transl Behav Med. 2020 Oct 12;10(5):1187-1199
pubmed: 33044534
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Jan;29(1):64-76
pubmed: 31548278
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020 Oct;25(4):220-228
pubmed: 31505976
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801
pubmed: 31012259
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 14;18(8):
pubmed: 33919920
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):28-38
pubmed: 22109631
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 3;10(11):e038339
pubmed: 33148733
Health Expect. 2021 Apr;24(2):589-600
pubmed: 33587827
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Nov 4;20(1):240
pubmed: 34736455
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 20;21(1):364
pubmed: 33879149
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 22;20(1):
pubmed: 36612467
Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Nov 12;12:E197
pubmed: 26564013
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Jan;38(1):185-194
pubmed: 36220944
J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2020 Jul 27;7(3):255-264
pubmed: 32760757
Trials. 2017 Apr 8;18(1):169
pubmed: 28388937
J Adv Nurs. 2004 Nov;48(4):388-96
pubmed: 15500533
Healthc (Amst). 2017 Dec;5(4):204-213
pubmed: 28039014
SAGE Open Med. 2019 Jan 02;7:2050312118822927
pubmed: 30637106
Ann Fam Med. 2019 Nov;17(6):495-501
pubmed: 31712287
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):284-297
pubmed: 30604580
Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):902-913
pubmed: 35322510