4 results
Adaptation of a bidirectional crisis and emergency risk communication framework by community-engaged research partnerships in rural Mississippi during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Rodney Washington, Jennifer A. Weis, Mauda Monger, Nakeitra Burse, Sandra Carr Melvin, Angela A. Omondi, Abby M. Lohr, Jane W. Njeru, Caroline E. Compretta, Irene G. Sia, Mark L. Wieland
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue 1 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 February 2023, e79
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Community engagement is important for reaching populations at risk for health inequities in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A community-engaged risk communication intervention implemented by a community-engaged research partnership in Southeast Minnesota to address COVID-19 prevention, testing, and socioeconomic impacts has demonstrated high acceptability, feasibility, perceived efficacy, and sustainability. In this study, we describe the adaptation of the intervention by a community-academic partnership with rural African American populations in three Mississippi counties with high COVID-19 disparities. Intervention reach was assessed by the number of messages delivered by Communication Leaders to members of their social networks. Perceived scalability of the intervention was assessed by the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool. Bidirectional communication between Communication Leaders and community members within their social networks was used by the partnership to refine messages, meet resource needs, and advise statewide decision-makers. In the first 3 months, more than 8482 individuals were reached in the three counties. The intervention was deemed to be highly scalable by partnership members. Adaptation of a community-engaged pandemic CERC intervention is feasible and scalable, and it has the potential to reduce COVID-19 inequities across heterogeneous populations. This approach may be incorporated into current and future pandemic preparedness policies for community engagement.
Disruptive technologies in health care disenchanted: a systematic review of concepts and examples
- Matthias Perleth, Rossella Di Bidino, Li-Ying Huang, Lydia Jones, Michelle Mujoomdar, Susan Myles, Andres Pichon-Riviere, Junainah Sabirin, Tara Schuller, Jennifer Washington
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 38 / Issue 1 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 May 2022, e70
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives
To clarify the concept of disruptive technologies in health care, provide examples and consider implications of potentially disruptive technologies for health technology assessment (HTA).
MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of conceptual and empirical papers on healthcare technologies that are described as “disruptive.” We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 2013 to April 2019 (updated in December 2021). Data extraction was done in duplicate by pairs of reviewers utilizing a data extraction form. A qualitative data analysis was undertaken based on an analytic framework for analysis of the concept and examples. Key arguments and a number of potential predictors of disruptive technologies were derived and implications for HTA organizations were discussed.
ResultsOf 4,107 records, 28 were included in the review. Most of the papers included conceptual discussions and business models for disruptive technologies; only few papers presented empirical evidence. The majority of the evidence is related to the US healthcare system. Key arguments for describing a technology as disruptive include improvement of outcomes for patients, improved access to health care, reduction of costs and better affordability, shift in responsibilities between providers, and change in the organization of health care. A number of possible predictors for disruption were identified to distinguish these from “sustaining” innovations.
ConclusionsSince truly disruptive technologies could radically change technology uptake and may modify provision of care patterns or treatment paths, they require a thorough evaluation of the consequences of using these technologies, including economic and organizational impact assessment and careful monitoring.
Australian perspectives on spiritual care training in healthcare: A Delphi study
- Kate F. Jones, Jennifer Washington, Matthew Kearney, David Kissane, Megan C. Best
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 19 / Issue 6 / December 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 July 2021, pp. 686-693
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective
The aim was to to establish core components of spiritual care training for healthcare professionals in Australia.
MethodsThis study used the Delphi technique to undertake a consensus exercise with spiritual care experts in the field of healthcare. Participant opinion was sought on (i) the most important components of spiritual care training; (ii) preferred teaching methods; (iii) clinical scenarios to address in spiritual care training; and (iv) current spiritual assessment and referral procedures.
ResultsOf the 107 participants who responded in the first round, 67 (62.6%) were female, 55 (51.4%) worked in pastoral care, and 84 (78.5%) selected Christian as their religious affiliation. The most highly ranked components of spiritual care training were “relationship between health and spirituality,” followed by “definitions of spirituality and spiritual care.” Consensus was not achieved on the item “comparative religions study/alternative spiritual beliefs.” Preferred teaching methods include case studies, group discussion, role-plays and/or simulated learning, videos of personal stories, and self-directed learning. The most highly ranked clinical scenario to be addressed in spiritual care training was “screening for spiritual concerns for any patient or resident.” When asked who should conduct an initial spiritual review with patients, consensus was achieved regarding all members of the healthcare team, with most nominating a chaplain or “whoever the patient feels comfortable with.” It was considered important for spiritual care training to address one's own spirituality and self-care. Consensus was not achieved on which spiritual care assessment tools to incorporate in training.
Significance of resultsThis Delphi study revealed that spiritual care training for Australian healthcare professionals should emphasize the understanding of the role of spirituality and spiritual care in healthcare, include a range of delivery methods, and focus upon the incorporation of spiritual screening. Further work is required to identify how spiritual care screening should be conducted within an Australian healthcare setting.
Contributors
-
- By Rony A. Adam, Gloria Bachmann, Nichole M. Barker, Randall B. Barnes, John Bennett, Inbar Ben-Shachar, Jonathan S. Berek, Sarah L. Berga, Monica W. Best, Eric J. Bieber, Frank M. Biro, Shan Biscette, Anita K. Blanchard, Candace Brown, Ronald T. Burkman, Joseph Buscema, John E. Buster, Michael Byas-Smith, Sandra Ann Carson, Judy C. Chang, Annie N. Y. Cheung, Mindy S. Christianson, Karishma Circelli, Daniel L. Clarke-Pearson, Larry J. Copeland, Bryan D. Cowan, Navneet Dhillon, Michael P. Diamond, Conception Diaz-Arrastia, Nicole M. Donnellan, Michael L. Eisenberg, Eric Eisenhauer, Sebastian Faro, J. Stuart Ferriss, Lisa C. Flowers, Susan J. Freeman, Leda Gattoc, Claudine Marie Gayle, Timothy M. Geiger, Jennifer S. Gell, Alan N. Gordon, Victoria L. Green, Jon K. Hathaway, Enrique Hernandez, S. Paige Hertweck, Randall S. Hines, Ira R. Horowitz, Fred M. Howard, William W. Hurd, Fidan Israfilbayli, Denise J. Jamieson, Carolyn R. Jaslow, Erika B. Johnston-MacAnanny, Rohna M. Kearney, Namita Khanna, Caroline C. King, Jeremy A. King, Ira J. Kodner, Tamara Kolev, Athena P. Kourtis, S. Robert Kovac, Ertug Kovanci, William H. Kutteh, Eduardo Lara-Torre, Pallavi Latthe, Herschel W. Lawson, Ronald L. Levine, Frank W. Ling, Larry I. Lipshultz, Steven D. McCarus, Robert McLellan, Shruti Malik, Suketu M. Mansuria, Mohamed K. Mehasseb, Pamela J. Murray, Saloney Nazeer, Farr R. Nezhat, Hextan Y. S. Ngan, Gina M. Northington, Peggy A. Norton, Ruth M. O'Regan, Kristiina Parviainen, Resad P. Pasic, Tanja Pejovic, K. Ulrich Petry, Nancy A. Phillips, Ashish Pradhan, Elizabeth E. Puscheck, Suneetha Rachaneni, Devon M. Ramaeker, David B. Redwine, Robert L. Reid, Carla P. Roberts, Walter Romano, Peter G. Rose, Robert L. Rosenfield, Shon P. Rowan, Mack T. Ruffin, Janice M. Rymer, Evis Sala, Ritu Salani, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, Mahmood I. Shafi, Roger P. Smith, Meredith L. Snook, Thomas E. Snyder, Mary D. Stephenson, Thomas G. Stovall, Richard L. Sweet, Philip M. Toozs-Hobson, Togas Tulandi, Elizabeth R. Unger, Denise S. Uyar, Marion S. Verp, Rahi Victory, Tamara J. Vokes, Michelle J. Washington, Katharine O'Connell White, Paul E. Wise, Frank M. Wittmaack, Miya P. Yamamoto, Christine Yu, Howard A. Zacur
- Edited by Eric J. Bieber, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, University of Pittsburgh, Ira R. Horowitz, Emory University, Atlanta, Mahmood I. Shafi
-
- Book:
- Clinical Gynecology
- Published online:
- 05 April 2015
- Print publication:
- 23 April 2015, pp viii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation