Abstract
PurposeThe purpose is explore an approach to acquire, analyze and report data concerning an organizational change initiative that combines knowledge generation and knowledge use, and contrast that with a method where knowledge generation and use is separated. More specifically, the authors contrast a participatory group workshop with individual interviews analyzed with thematic analysis, focusing on information about the change process and its perceived practical relevance and usefulness.Design/methodology/approachParticipants were managers responsible for implementing a broad organizational change aiming to improve service quality (e.g. access and equity) and reduce costs in a mental health service organization in Sweden. Individual interviews were conducted at two points, six months apart (i1: n = 15; i2: n = 18). Between the interviews, a 3.5-h participatory group workshop was conducted, during which participants (n = 15) both generated and analyzed data through a structured process that mixed individual-, small- and whole-group activities.FindingsBoth approaches elicited substantive information about the content, purpose and process of change. While the content and purpose findings were similar across the two data sources, the interviews described how to lead a change process, whereas the workshop yielded concrete information about what to do. Benefits of interviews included personal insights about leading change while the workshop provided an opportunity for collective sense-making.Originality/valueWhen organizational stakeholders work through the change process through a participatory workshop, they may get on the same page, but require additional support to take action.
Highlights
The gap between what is known from research and what is done in practice is one of the most persistent challenges to improving quality of care, pointing toward translational gaps along the research-to-practice pathway (Cooksey, 2006)
The time required for research to be implemented in practice is still too long. This has led to calls for more rapid approaches to health service and implementation research (Riley et al, 2013)
Inspired by the movement toward rapid methods in implementation research and Mode-2 knowledge production, this study aimed to describe and contrast the information gained from two approaches to data acquisition, analysis, and reporting
Summary
The gap between what is known from research and what is done in practice is one of the most persistent challenges to improving quality of care, pointing toward translational gaps along the research-to-practice pathway (Cooksey, 2006). Gale et al, 2019), and use of pragmatic assessment strategies that include brief and actionable measures that produce feedback rapidly (Battaglia and Glasgow, 2018), to rapid review methods (Polisena et al, 2015). These calls for rapid research (Peek et al, 2014) and rapid implementation (Smith et al, 2020) cover the entire spectrum, from a study’s conceptualization to the reporting of findings. Reasons for using rapid approaches include reducing time and costs as well as increasing the amount of collected data by reducing time and resources spent on collecting it, improving efficiency and accuracy and reducing biases (Vindrola-Padros and Johnson, 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call