การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

In the past few years several major reports highlighted the gap between our knowledge of effective treatments and services currently being received by consumers. These reports agree that we know much about interventions that are effective but make little use of them to help achieve important behavioral health outcomes for children families and adults nationally. This theme is repeated in reports by the Surgeon General (United States Department of Health and Human Services 1999; 2001) the National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH] National Advisory Mental Health Council Workgroup on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Intervention Development and Deployment (2001) Bernfeld Farrington & Leschied (2001) Institute of Medicine (2001) and the Presidents New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). The authors call for applied research to better understand service delivery processes and contextual factors to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of program implementation at local state and national levels. Our understanding of how to develop and evaluate evidence-based intervention programs has been furthered by on-going efforts to research and refine programs and practices to define "evidence bases" and to designate and catalogue "evidence-based programs or practices". However the factors involved in successful implementation of these programs are not as well understood. Current views of implementation are based on the scholarly foundations prepared by Pressman & Wildavskys (1973) study of policy implementation Havelock & Havelocks (1973) classic curriculum for training change agents and Rogers (1983; 1995) series of analyses of factors influencing decisions to choose a given innovation. These foundations were tested and further informed by the experience base generated by pioneering attempts to implement Fairweather Lodges and National Follow-Through education models among others. Petersilia (1990) concluded that "The ideas embodied in innovative social programs are not self-executing." Instead what is needed is an "implementation perspective on innovation--an approach that views postadoption events as crucial and focuses on the actions of those who convert it into practice as the key to success or failure". (excerpt)

Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature.

Such diverse thinkers as Lao-Tze, Confucius, and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have all pointed out that we need to be able to tell the difference between real and assumed knowledge. The systematic review is a scientific tool that can help with this difficult task. It can help, for example, with appraising, summarising, and communicating the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of data. This is important because quite often there are so many studies, and their results are often so conflicting, that no policymaker or practitioner could possibly carry out this task themselves.Systematic review methods have been widely used in health care, and are becoming increasingly common in the social sciences (fostered, for example, by the work of the Campbell Collaboration). 

This book outlines the rationale and methods of systematic reviews, giving worked examples from social science and other fields. It requires no previous knowledge, but takes the reader through the process stage by stage. It draws on examples from such diverse fields as psychology, criminology, education, transport, social welfare, public health, and housing and urban policy, among others.The book includes detailed sections on assessing the quality of both quantitative, and qualitative research; searching for evidence in the social sciences;meta-analytic and other methods of evidence synthesis; publication bias; heterogeneity; and approaches to dissemination.

Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide

Titles & abstract s Titles & abstracts Include N=54 Include N=121 Include N=89 Exclude N = 0 Exclude N = 1,024 Exclude N = 21

Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic Reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Version 1

Peter Craig, MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network Paul Dieppe, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oxford Sally Macintyre, MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit Susan Michie, Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, University College London Irwin Nazareth, MRC General Practice Research Framework Mark Petticrew, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance

Although bioethicists have written about public health problems for many decades (e.g., Faden and Faden 1978; Bayer and Moreno 1986), public health ethics as a distinct field is not much older than the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (JBI) itself. Around 2000, there was a rapid increase in the number of ethicists writing about public health problems (e.g., Kass 2001; Upshur 2002) as well as engagement of public health practitioners with ethical dilemmas and questions (e.g., Thomas et al. 2002; Jennings et al. 2003). Public health ethics has tended to focus on communicable diseases, pandemics, contagion, and crises. This is not surprising given the acute problems they raise, not least questions regarding coercion and harm to others. However, in public health policy and practice, there is increasing attention to the significance of non-communicable diseases. This concern was sufficient to stimulate the second only United Nations high-level meeting on a health issue in the history of that organization, held September 2011 in New York (United Nations Secretary-General 2011). This meeting produced official acknowledgement and agreement between member states that worldwide changes in prevalence of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory illnesses are associated with particular kinds of development and that prevention of these diseases is an important global political and economic challenge.

/pdf/a-public-health-ethics-approach-to-non-communicable-diseases-2120mfamvi.pdf

A Public Health Ethics Approach to Non-Communicable Diseases

/pdf/interventionsfor-evaluating-evidence-on-public-health-433gw4fa8e.pdf

interventionsfor evaluating evidence on public health

Abstract Background Climate change is impacting the health of individuals worldwide. At the same time, the healthcare sector contributes to carbon emissions. In Australia, healthcare contributes 7% of the country’s carbon footprint. Research into the environmental impact and mitigation of carbon emissions in primary care is an emerging area. Objective To explore staff perspectives on facilitators and barriers to environmental sustainability in 3 Australian general practices seeking to reduce their environmental impact. Methods We used a qualitative, case-study approach, conducting 23 semistructured interviews with staff across the 3 practices including nurses, administrative staff, and doctors. Observation of systems and staff behaviour relating to environmental sustainability was undertaken at 1 practice. Thematic analysis was conducted to determine themes relating to factors influencing the implementation of environmentally sustainable initiatives within practice settings. Results Climate mitigation efforts raised by participants were largely focussed on energy and waste reduction, rather than prescribing pharmaceuticals and staff and patient transport. Three main factors influencing change towards sustainable practice were identified: “Leadership,” “Staff Engagement and Workplace Culture,” and “Concomitant Benefits.” A leadership team and workplace culture that valued environmental sustainability were found to be important facilitators, as were concomitant benefits, in particular financial savings. Barriers included what interviewees described as a lack of knowledge about initiatives with the highest impact, lack of understanding described by staff of the evidence behind particular initiatives, waning staff engagement and infection control concerns. Conclusions Our research highlights several important factors that contribute to the implementation of intended environmentally sustainable initiatives in these 3 practices. Further education, research and high-level policy guidance on the potential environmental impact of prescribing pharmaceuticals, staff and patient transport and unnecessary tests and treatments are recommended to further promote environmental sustainability in primary care.

/pdf/what-can-we-learn-from-australian-general-practices-taking-1kxvtjs1.pdf

What can we learn from Australian general practices taking steps to be more environmentally sustainable? A qualitative study

Introduction Strengthening systems for chronic disease prevention is essential. Leadership for systems change is an important key to strengthening systems. Leadership in prevention research for supporting systems change remains a relatively abstract concept and there is limited empirical information about the leadership practices of prevention research teams when viewed through a complexity lens. In this paper we examine and describe some systems leadership practices for creating change through prevention research, as identified in a series of six case studies. Methods A qualitative approach incorporating semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document review was used to facilitate an in-depth investigation of the research topic. Results Several researcher practices for enhancing research impact in the prevention of chronic disease were distilled from the data pertaining to how they sought to create change. These included persuasive communication, compassion and deep listening, reflective practice, and embedding themselves within the systems they sought to change. Discussion The findings provide insights that may assist prevention researchers and other practitioners dedicated to creating change in chronic disease prevention.

Leadership for systems change: Researcher practices for enhancing research impact in the prevention of chronic disease

Quality improvement collaborative projects aim to reduce gaps in clinical care provided in the healthcare system. This study evaluated the experience of key participants from a Quality Improvement Program (QPulse) that focussed on cardiovascular disease assessment and management. The study goal was to identify critical barriers and factors enabling the implementation of a quality improvement framework in Australian general practice.This qualitative study examined in-depth semi-structured interviews with nineteen purposively-selected participants of the QPulse project. Interviewees were from General Practices and the local supporting organisation, a Primary Health Network. Interviews were analysed thematically using the Complex Systems Improvement framework, focusing on five domains: strategy, culture, structure, workforce and technology.Despite reported engagement with QPulse objectives to improve cardiovascular preventive care, implementation barriers associated with this program were considerable for all interviewees. Adoption of the quality improvement process was reliant on designated leadership, aligned practice culture, organised systems for clear communication, tailored education and utilisation of clinical audit and review processes. Rather than practice size and location, practice culture and governance alignment to quality improvement predicted successful implementation. Financial incentives for both general practice and the Primary Health Network were also identified as prerequisites for systematised quality improvement projects in the future, along with individualised support and education for each general practice. Technology was both an enabler and a barrier, and the Primary Health Network was seen as key to assisting the successful utilisation of the available tools.Implementation of Quality Improvement programs remains a potential tool for achieving better health outcomes in General Practice. However, enablers such as financial incentives, individualised education and support provided via a supporting organisation, and IT tools and support are crucial if the full potential of Quality Improvement programs are to be realised in the Australian healthcare setting.ACTRN12615000108516 , UTN U1111-1163-7995. 

/pdf/learning-from-the-implementation-of-a-quality-improvement-35vr4h45.pdf

Learning from the implementation of a quality improvement intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative analysis of participants views of a CVD preventive care project

Lucie Rychetnik

Papers

A Public Health Ethics Approach to Non-Communicable Diseases

interventionsfor evaluating evidence on public health

What can we learn from Australian general practices taking steps to be more environmentally sustainable? A qualitative study

Leadership for systems change: Researcher practices for enhancing research impact in the prevention of chronic disease

Learning from the implementation of a quality improvement intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative analysis of participants views of a CVD preventive care project