↓ Skip to main content

Models of care for musculoskeletal health: a cross-sectional qualitative study of Australian stakeholders’ perspectives on relevance and standardised evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Models of care for musculoskeletal health: a cross-sectional qualitative study of Australian stakeholders’ perspectives on relevance and standardised evaluation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1173-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Briggs, Joanne E. Jordan, Robyn Speerin, Matthew Jennings, Peter Bragge, Jason Chua, Helen Slater

Abstract

The prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions are predicted to rapidly escalate in the coming decades. Effective strategies are required to minimise 'evidence-practice', 'burden-policy' and 'burden-service' gaps and optimise health system responsiveness for sustainable, best-practice healthcare. One mechanism by which evidence can be translated into practice and policy is through Models of Care (MoCs), which provide a blueprint for health services planning and delivery. While evidence supports the effectiveness of musculoskeletal MoCs for improving health outcomes and system efficiencies, no standardised national approach to evaluation in terms of their 'readiness' for implementation and 'success' after implementation, is yet available. Further, the value assigned to MoCs by end users is uncertain. This qualitative study aimed to explore end users' views on the relevance of musculoskeletal MoCs to their work and value of a standardised evaluation approach. A cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken. Subject matter experts (SMEs) with health, policy and administration and consumer backgrounds were drawn from three Australian states. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed and piloted to explore perceptions about musculoskeletal MoCs including: i) aspects important to their work (or life, for consumers) ii) usefulness of standardised evaluation frameworks to judge 'readiness' and 'success' and iii) challenges associated with standardised evaluation. Verbatim transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach to derive key themes. Twenty-seven SMEs (n = 19; 70.4 % female) including five (18.5 %) consumers participated in the study. MoCs were perceived as critical for influencing and initiating changes to best-practice healthcare planning and delivery and providing practical guidance on how to implement and evaluate services. A 'readiness' evaluation framework assessing whether critical components across the health system had been considered prior to implementation was strongly supported, while 'success' was perceived as an already familiar evaluation concept. Perceived challenges associated with standardised evaluation included identifying, defining and measuring key 'readiness' and 'success' indicators; impacts of systems and context changes; cost; meaningful stakeholder consultation and developing a widely applicable framework. A standardised evaluation framework that includes a strong focus on 'readiness' is important to ensure successful and sustainable implementation of musculoskeletal MoCs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 28 29%