Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study
Abstract Background: The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in r...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Translational Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059866125000299/type/journal_article |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849393738679320576 |
|---|---|
| author | Kelly A. Aschbrenner Callie Walsh-Bailey Meagan C. Brown Tanveer Khan Travis P. Baggett Salene M.W. Jones Douglas E. Levy Lydia E. Pace Jonathan P. Winickoff |
| author_facet | Kelly A. Aschbrenner Callie Walsh-Bailey Meagan C. Brown Tanveer Khan Travis P. Baggett Salene M.W. Jones Douglas E. Levy Lydia E. Pace Jonathan P. Winickoff |
| author_sort | Kelly A. Aschbrenner |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Abstract
Background:
The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in research across different phases of implementation research.
Methods:
This qualitative focus group and consensus building study involved researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control program and nine Community Health Centers (CHCs) in Massachusetts. Six focus groups (n = 3 with CHC staff; n = 3 with researchers) assessed barriers and facilitators to staff participation in implementation research. During consensus discussions, we used findings to develop considerations for engaging staff as participants and partners throughout phases of implementation research.
Results:
Sixteen researchers and 14 staff participated in separate focus groups; nine researchers and seven staff participated in separate consensus discussions. Themes emerged across participant groups in three domains: (1) influences on research participation; (2) research burdens and benefits; and (3) ways to facilitate staff participation in research. Practical considerations included: (a) aligning research with organizational and staff values and priorities; (b) applying user-centered design to research methods; (c) building organizational and individual research capacity; and (d) offering equitable incentives for staff participation.
Conclusions:
Engaging staff as participants and partners across different phases of implementation research requires knowledge about what contributes to research burden and benefits and addressing context-specific burdens and benefits.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2da8ac57d21d4b079f60225b1566b0ee |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2059-8661 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Clinical and Translational Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-2da8ac57d21d4b079f60225b1566b0ee2025-08-20T03:40:18ZengCambridge University PressJournal of Clinical and Translational Science2059-86612025-01-01910.1017/cts.2025.29Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building studyKelly A. Aschbrenner0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6243-2421Callie Walsh-Bailey1Meagan C. Brown2Tanveer Khan3Travis P. Baggett4Salene M.W. Jones5Douglas E. Levy6Lydia E. Pace7https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5378-0296Jonathan P. Winickoff8Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USADepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Division of Implementation Science, Northwestern University Feinberg, School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USAKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA University of Washington, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hans Rosling Center for Population Health, Seattle, WA, USAHarvard Street Neighborhood Health Center, Dorchester, MA, USADivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, Program Institute for Research, Quality & Policy Boston, MA, USA The Mongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USAThe Mongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USAHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Division of General Academic Pediatrics, Mass General for Children, Boston, MA, USA Abstract Background: The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in research across different phases of implementation research. Methods: This qualitative focus group and consensus building study involved researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control program and nine Community Health Centers (CHCs) in Massachusetts. Six focus groups (n = 3 with CHC staff; n = 3 with researchers) assessed barriers and facilitators to staff participation in implementation research. During consensus discussions, we used findings to develop considerations for engaging staff as participants and partners throughout phases of implementation research. Results: Sixteen researchers and 14 staff participated in separate focus groups; nine researchers and seven staff participated in separate consensus discussions. Themes emerged across participant groups in three domains: (1) influences on research participation; (2) research burdens and benefits; and (3) ways to facilitate staff participation in research. Practical considerations included: (a) aligning research with organizational and staff values and priorities; (b) applying user-centered design to research methods; (c) building organizational and individual research capacity; and (d) offering equitable incentives for staff participation. Conclusions: Engaging staff as participants and partners across different phases of implementation research requires knowledge about what contributes to research burden and benefits and addressing context-specific burdens and benefits. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059866125000299/type/journal_articleImplementation researchresource-constrained healthcare settingsinner settingsstafforganizationsepis implementation frameworkpragmatic research methods |
| spellingShingle | Kelly A. Aschbrenner Callie Walsh-Bailey Meagan C. Brown Tanveer Khan Travis P. Baggett Salene M.W. Jones Douglas E. Levy Lydia E. Pace Jonathan P. Winickoff Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Implementation research resource-constrained healthcare settings inner settings staff organizations epis implementation framework pragmatic research methods |
| title | Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study |
| title_full | Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study |
| title_fullStr | Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study |
| title_short | Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study |
| title_sort | practical considerations for engaging staff in resource constrained healthcare settings in implementation research a qualitative focus group and consensus building study |
| topic | Implementation research resource-constrained healthcare settings inner settings staff organizations epis implementation framework pragmatic research methods |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059866125000299/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kellyaaschbrenner practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT calliewalshbailey practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT meagancbrown practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT tanveerkhan practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT travispbaggett practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT salenemwjones practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT douglaselevy practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT lydiaepace practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy AT jonathanpwinickoff practicalconsiderationsforengagingstaffinresourceconstrainedhealthcaresettingsinimplementationresearchaqualitativefocusgroupandconsensusbuildingstudy |