Evaluation of a 'virtual' approach to commissioning health research

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a 'virtual' (computer-mediated) approach to health research commissioning. This had been introduced experimentally in a DOH programme – the 'Health of Londoners Programme' – in order to assess whether is could enhance the accessibility, transparency and effectiveness of commissioning health research. The study described here was commissioned to evaluate this novel approach, addressing these key questions. METHODS: A naturalistic-experimental approach was combined with principles of action research. The different commissioning groups within the programme were randomly allocated to either the traditional face-to-face mode or the novel 'virtual' mode. Mainly qualitative data were gathered including observation of all (virtual and face-to-face) commissioning meetings; semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants (n = 32/66); structured questionnaires and interviews with lead researchers of early commissioned projects. All members of the commissioning groups were invited to participate in collaborative enquiry groups which participated actively in the analysis process. RESULTS: The virtual process functioned as intended, reaching timely and relatively transparent decisions that participants had confidence in. Despite the potential for greater access using a virtual approach, few differences were found in practice. Key advantages included physical access, a more flexible and extended time period for discussion, reflection and information gathering and a more transparent decision-making process. Key challenges were the reduction of social cues available in a computer-mediated medium that require novel ways of ensuring appropriate dialogue, feedback and interaction. However, in both modes, the process was influenced by a range of factors and was not technology driven. CONCLUSION: There is potential for using computer-mediated communication within the research commissioning process. This may enhance access, effectiveness and transparency of decision-making but further development is needed for this to be fully realised, including attention to process as well as the computer-mediated medium

Social richness, socio-technical tension and the virtual commissioning of NHS research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This paper draws on a recent study that evaluated the process of commissioning NHS funded research using virtual committees. Building on an earlier paper that reported our evaluation, here we focus on the effects of asynchronous computer mediated communication (CMC) when used to support group work.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To do this the discussion focuses on how CMC affected three key group factors, building relationships, group cohesion and group commitment. The notion of socio-technical tension is elaborated and the paper explores how social richness can act to counter the socially impoverishing and time extending effects of asynchronous CMC.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We argue that social richness in this context results from the presence of five principal influences. These are: a dynamic range of participant aspirations and personal agendas; participant commitment to and identification with the work and ideals of the group; a rich diversity of social, professional and work-related backgrounds; a website designed to enhance participation and interaction and the mediating effects of an effective chairperson.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>If virtual work groups are to be used by the NHS in the future, then there is a need for more research into the role of social context and its relationship to the effectiveness of newly formed virtual groups. Equally as important are studies that examine the effects of socio-technical interaction on groups undertaking tasks in the real world of work.</p

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Morphological and photometric studies of galaxies by electronography

Imperial Users onl

Raising voices Ensuring quality in residential care

SIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Delivering a work-focused service Final findings from ONE case studies and staff research

Research carried out by the Tavistock Institute on behalf of the DWPAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:7761.4795(no 166) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Delivering a work-focused service Interim findings from the ONE case studies and staff research

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:4372.252(84) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo