Exploring professional orientations to community voice in professional practice settings: The IMAP process

The tension between technical experts and the populations they seek to serve is well established in the literature examining professional social problem solving. In this piece, I examine this tension as one between the distinct discursive worlds of technical expertise and community voice. I develop an analytic process, IMAP, for exploring this tension by looking at a wide variety of professional orientations around a relatively fixed concept of community voice. IMAP involves I&barbelow;dentifying social problem solvers, M&barbelow;apping social problem solvers' claims, A&barbelow;nalyzing professional orientations that arise from this mapping, and P&barbelow;redicting, diagnosing, and remediating conflicts. IMAP can be used by analysts external to social problem solving settings or by social problem solvers themselves. The use of IMAP by external experts poses questions of expert alignment with either of the discursive worlds. I examine two cases in public health practice settings: a mobile immunization service and the efforts of a foundation to improve health in an inner-city neighborhood. I develop four modal types that can be anticipated in social problem solving settings or, more specifically, in public health practice. Understanding of these “world views” can enhance mutual understanding between public health professionals and between public health professionals and the communities they seek to serve. IMAP might also address ongoing conflicts to clarify differences in unspoken normative commitments and the impact of these on social problem solving. I discuss implications of the research for public health practice and further research in the area. ^

A PROCESS FOR ACHIEVING COMPARABLE DATA FROM HETEROGENEOUS DATABASES

The current state of health and biomedicine includes an enormity of heterogeneous data ‘silos’, collected for different purposes and represented differently, that are presently impossible to share or analyze in toto. The greatest challenge for large-scale and meaningful analyses of health-related data is to achieve a uniform data representation for data extracted from heterogeneous source representations. Based upon an analysis and categorization of heterogeneities, a process for achieving comparable data content by using a uniform terminological representation is developed. This process addresses the types of representational heterogeneities that commonly arise in healthcare data integration problems. Specifically, this process uses a reference terminology, and associated "maps" to transform heterogeneous data to a standard representation for comparability and secondary use. The capture of quality and precision of the “maps” between local terms and reference terminology concepts enhances the meaning of the aggregated data, empowering end users with better-informed queries for subsequent analyses. A data integration case study in the domain of pediatric asthma illustrates the development and use of a reference terminology for creating comparable data from heterogeneous source representations. The contribution of this research is a generalized process for the integration of data from heterogeneous source representations, and this process can be applied and extended to other problems where heterogeneous data needs to be merged.

A process evaluation of a health literacy intervention targeting pediatric providers' communication skills at the Texas Children's Health Plan

Background. Health literacy is an important determinant for quality health care, and affects communication between patients and physicians. Poor communication may result in negative effects in health. Improved communication between patients and physicians could positively affect health outcomes. Communication skills are teachable.^ Objectives. (1) to evaluate the process involved in the design and implementation of a health literacy intervention targeting pediatric providers’ communication skills at the Texas Children’s Health Plan in Houston, Texas; and (2) to describe lessons learned from this process that may be used in future attempts to address the issue of health literacy and health communication. ^ Design/methods. The process evaluation of the implementation of a health literacy strategy at the Texas Children’s Health Plan (TCHP) consisted of a critical analysis of all documents and minutes from meetings of the team of investigators. It also involved a secondary analysis of data collected between December 2006 and June 2007. Descriptive statistics, paired t-test and Wilcoxon-signed-rank test were employed in analyzing the data. This information was complemented with a limited review of existing literature on communication skills training programs. ^ Results. The design of the educational intervention followed recommendations from experts in the field of health literacy. The delivery of the intervention was possible and benefited from existing resources and logistics within the TCHP. Very few targeted providers participated in two offerings of the workshop (6.6% and 1.7% respectively). After the educational intervention, providers showed increased knowledge of health literacy facts and its effects in health (p=0.001); increased awareness of the low health literacy problem (p=0.003); increased expectations for change in practice (p=0.002), and intent to use health literacy strategies for communication immediately following the intervention (p=0.001). Low participation indicated the need for further investigation of barriers to, and means for successful implementation of programs aimed to improving health communication. ^ Conclusions. A short, focused intervention utilizing health literacy strategies for communication appeared effective in increasing knowledge and intentions for change in a small group of pediatric providers. ^

Barriers to cross-border research projects: A prelude to improving professional collaborations between the United States and Mexico

Study objective. This was a secondary data analysis of a study designed and executed in two phases in order to investigate several questions: Why aren't more investigators conducting successful cross-border research on human health issues? What are the barriers to conducting this research? What interventions might facilitate cross-border research? ^ Methods. Key informant interviews and focus groups were used in Phase One, and structured questionnaires in Phase Two. A multi-question survey was created based on the findings of focus groups and distributed to a wider circle of researchers and academics for completion. The data was entered and analyzed using SPSS software. ^ Setting. El Paso, TX located on the U.S-Mexico Border. ^ Participants. Individuals from local academic institutions and the State Department of Health. ^ Results. From the transcribed data of the focus groups, eight major themes emerged: Political Barriers, Language/Cultural Barriers, Differing Goals, Geographic Issues, Legal Barriers, Technology/Material Issues, Financial Barriers, and Trust Issues. Using these themes, the questionnaire was created. ^ The response rate for the questionnaires was 47%. The largest obstacles revealed by this study were identifying a funding source for the project (47% agreeing or strongly agreeing), difficulties paying a foreign counterpart (33% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and administrative changes in Mexico (31% agreeing or strongly agreeing). ^ Conclusions. Many U.S. investigators interested in cross-border research have been discouraged in their efforts by varying barriers. The majority of respondents in the survey felt financial issues and changes in Mexican governments were the most significant obstacles. While some of these barriers can be overcome simply by collaboration among motivated groups, other barriers may be more difficult to remove. Although more evaluation of this research question is warranted, the information obtained through this study is sufficient to support creation of a Cross-Border Research Resource Manual to be used by individuals interested in conducting research with Mexico. ^

Improving disclosure of medical errors: Including patients and family members in the disclosure process

Over the last decade, adverse events and medical errors have become a main focus of interest for the standards of quality and safety in the U.S. healthcare system (Weinstein & Henderson, 2009). Particularly when a medical error occurs, the disclosure of medical errors and its practices have become a focal point of the healthcare process. Patients and family members who have experienced a medical error might be able to provide knowledge and insight on how to improve the disclose process. However, patient and family member are not typically involved in the disclosure process, thus their experiences go unnoticed. ^ The purpose of this research was to explore how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process regarding a medical error. The research consisted of 28 qualitative interviews from three stakeholder groups: Hospital Administrators, Clinical Service Providers, and Patients and Family Members. They were asked for their ideas and suggestions on how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process. Framework Analysis was used to analyze this data and find prevalent themes based on the primary research question. A secondary aim was to index categories created based on the interviews that were collected. Data was used from the Texas Disclosure and Compensation Study with Dr. Eric Thomas as the Principal Investigator. Full acknowledgement of access to this data is given to Dr. Thomas. ^ The themes from the research revealed that each stakeholder group was interested and open to including patients and family members in the disclosure process and that the disclosure process should not be a "one-way" avenue. The themes gave many suggestions regarding how to best include patients and family members in the disclosure process of a medical error. Secondary aims revealed several ways to assess the ideas and suggestion given by the stakeholders. Overall, acceptability of getting the perspective of patients and family members was the most common theme. Comparison of each stakeholder group revealed that including patients and family members would be beneficial to improving hospital disclosure practices. ^ Conclusions included a list of recommendations and measureable appropriate strategies that could provide hospital with key stakeholders insights on how to improve their disclosure process. Sharing patients and family members experience with healthcare providers can encourage a shift in culture where patients are valued and active in participating in hospital practices. To my knowledge, this research is the very first of its kind and moves the disclosure process conversation forward in a patient-family member inclusion direction that will assist in improving disclosure practices. Future research should implement and evaluate the success of the various inclusion strategies.^