Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design
Objectives The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as trainin...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e033227.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850173305824215040 |
|---|---|
| author | Anne Richter Caroline Lornudd Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz Robert Lundmark Rebecca Mosson Ulrika Eskner Skoger Tatja Hirvikoski Henna Hasson |
| author_facet | Anne Richter Caroline Lornudd Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz Robert Lundmark Rebecca Mosson Ulrika Eskner Skoger Tatja Hirvikoski Henna Hasson |
| author_sort | Anne Richter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management).Design A pre-evaluation–postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels.Setting Healthcare managers from Stockholm’s regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training.Participants 52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training.Intervention iLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model.Primary outcome measures Reactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured.Results Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants’ knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1.Conclusions iLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4402db6325cd41efbaac52137e4a3577 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-4402db6325cd41efbaac52137e4a35772025-08-20T02:19:53ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-01-0110110.1136/bmjopen-2019-033227Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention designAnne Richter0Caroline Lornudd1Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz2Robert Lundmark3Rebecca Mosson4Ulrika Eskner Skoger5Tatja Hirvikoski6Henna Hasson71 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden3 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden1 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden1 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden1 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Centre, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden4 Swedish Psychological Association, Stockholm, Sweden5 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, SwedenDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, SwedenObjectives The present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management).Design A pre-evaluation–postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels.Setting Healthcare managers from Stockholm’s regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training.Participants 52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training.Intervention iLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model.Primary outcome measures Reactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured.Results Quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants’ knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1.Conclusions iLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e033227.full |
| spellingShingle | Anne Richter Caroline Lornudd Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz Robert Lundmark Rebecca Mosson Ulrika Eskner Skoger Tatja Hirvikoski Henna Hasson Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design BMJ Open |
| title | Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design |
| title_full | Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design |
| title_short | Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design |
| title_sort | evaluation of ilead a generic implementation leadership intervention mixed method preintervention postintervention design |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e033227.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT annerichter evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT carolinelornudd evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT ulricavonthieleschwarz evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT robertlundmark evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT rebeccamosson evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT ulrikaesknerskoger evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT tatjahirvikoski evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign AT hennahasson evaluationofileadagenericimplementationleadershipinterventionmixedmethodpreinterventionpostinterventiondesign |