Collaborative learning framework for online stakeholder engagement

Health Expectations - Tập 19 Số 4 - Trang 868-882 - 2016
Dmitry Khodyakov1, Terrance D. Savitsky1, Siddhartha R. Dalal1
1RAND, Santa Monica, CA USA

Tóm tắt

AbstractBackgroundPublic and stakeholder engagement can improve the quality of both research and policy decision making. However, such engagement poses significant methodological challenges in terms of collecting and analysing input from large, diverse groups.ObjectiveTo explain how online approaches can facilitate iterative stakeholder engagement, to describe how input from large and diverse stakeholder groups can be analysed and to propose a collaborative learning framework (CLF) to interpret stakeholder engagement results.MethodsWe use ‘A National Conversation on Reducing the Burden of Suicide in the United States’ as a case study of online stakeholder engagement and employ a Bayesian data modelling approach to develop a CLF.ResultsOur data modelling results identified six distinct stakeholder clusters that varied in the degree of individual articulation and group agreement and exhibited one of the three learning styles: learning towards consensus, learning by contrast and groupthink. Learning by contrast was the most common, or dominant, learning style in this study.ConclusionStudy results were used to develop a CLF, which helps explore multitude of stakeholder perspectives; identifies clusters of participants with similar shifts in beliefs; offers an empirically derived indicator of engagement quality; and helps determine the dominant learning style. The ability to detect learning by contrast helps illustrate differences in stakeholder perspectives, which may help policymakers, including Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute, make better decisions by soliciting and incorporating input from patients, caregivers, health‐care providers and researchers. Study results have important implications for soliciting and incorporating input from stakeholders with different interests and perspectives.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1001/jama.2009.1033

10.1177/2156869311431613

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036

10.1001/jama.297.4.407

10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00098-7

Hamilton LopezM HolveE ReinA WinklerJ.Involving patients and consumers in research: new opportunities for meaningful engagement in research and quality improvement. Academy Health: EDM Forum Community [serial on the Internet].2012; June:1–8. Available at:http://repository.academyhealth.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=edm_briefs&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3DPCORI%2Bengagement%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%22PCORI%20engagement%22 accessed 1 September 2014.

10.1289/ehp.02110s2155

Mallery C, 2012, Innovative Methods in Stakeholder Engagement: An Environmental Scan

10.1177/1524839906289376

10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.024

10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.017

10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00091-6

Daniels SE, 2001, Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach

10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00642.x

TenbenselT.Virtual special issue: public participation in health policy in high income countries. Social Science and Medicine [serial on the Internet]. No date. Available at:http://www.elsevierscitech.com/pdfs/Public_Participation_Health_Policy.pdf accessed 24 April 2013.

10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.004

10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00151-4

10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.029

10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_7

Page SE, 2007, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies

10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00557.x

Bowles KH, 2003, Expert consensus for discharge referral decisions using online Delphi, AMIA Symposium Proceedings, 2003, 106

10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE

Fitch K, 2001, The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual

10.1177/0963662509354543

10.1080/08941920802178180

10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00492.x

10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F

10.1038/075450a0

10.1073/pnas.0403723101

10.1007/BF00140244

10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.10.004

10.1287/orsc.5.3.403

10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01569.x

10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.006

Dillenbourg P, 1999, Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches

Stahl G, 2006, Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 409

10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.021

10.1093/pan/1.1.25

10.1016/S0168-8510(96)90021-4

National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention's Research Prioritization Task Force.Stakeholder survey results.2012. Available at:http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/system/files/Stakeholder%20Survey%20-%20Brief%20Overview%20of%20Results%2004%2011%2012.pdf accessed 10 April 2013.

10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376

Thilmany J, 2011, What do you think?, Mechanical Engineering, 133, 21

10.1186/1471-2288-11-174

D Kahneman P Slovic A Tversky 1982 Cambridge University Press New York NY

10.1006/obhd.2001.2954

Janis IL, 1982, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes

McGrath JE, 1984, Groups: Interaction and Performance

10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00060

10.1056/NEJMp1109407

10.1001/jama.2012.500

10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757

10.2105/AJPH.2009.170506

10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4

10.1016/0040-1625(91)90002-W

Jillson IA, 2002, The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, 119

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Health Expectations

Tập 19 Số 4

868-882

Thông tin tác giả