背景:在电子健康研究中与不同利益相关者的合作是基础但复杂的。来自不同学科的利益相关者不会“说同一种语言”,并且具有不同程度的权力和兴趣,导致不同的目标,优先事项,和期望。为了克服这种复杂的动态,必须采取建设性的沟通和合作方法。共同创造,在eHealth领域最常涉及最终用户,也可能适合促进利益相关者的参与和对齐。
目的:本文提供了对共同创造应用的见解,特别是在研究的早期阶段,专注于参与和调整来自不同学术和专业背景的相关利益相关者。
方法:本研究的案例是与多学科联盟成员的小组讨论,该联盟致力于开发动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病的个性化电子健康干预措施。使用利益相关者映射,健康和医学专家,大数据科学家,软件开发人员,邀请了一名创新经理(N=8)参加。该讨论基于用户场景,并根据deBono的六顶思考帽进行了结构化,代表6种不同类型的思维。讨论被记录下来,逐字转录,并使用ATLAS进行主题分析。ti软件。
结果:首先,信息和直观的思维有助于熟悉项目细节和其他参与者。第二,积极和批判性的思维构成了讨论的主体,并导致了深入的对话。第三,创造性和组织思维以行动为导向,侧重于解决方案和规划,以保障未来的进步。与会者反复思考各种与干预有关的主题,从干预内容到技术功能,从法律要求到实践实施。此外,讨论了与项目有关的事项,包括利益相关者管理以及时间和预算限制。
结论:本文展示了共同创造如何对多学科利益相关者的参与和协调具有价值。基于利益相关者映射(与谁讨论),一个梦想的用户场景(讨论什么),和德博诺的六顶思考帽(如何讨论),参与者分享了信息,讨论差异,寻找解决方案,并转向关于干预发展的集体方法。吸取的经验教训可以进一步增进对共同创造如何有助于多学科合作的理解。
Collaboration with diverse stakeholders in eHealth research is fundamental yet complex. Stakeholders from various disciplines do not \"speak the same language\" and have different levels of power and interest, resulting in contrasting objectives, priorities, and expectations. An approach to constructive communication and collaboration is necessary to overcome this complex dynamic. Cocreation, known in the field of eHealth most often to involve end users, may also be suitable for facilitating stakeholder engagement and alignment.
This paper provides insights into the application of cocreation, specifically in the early phases of research that focus on involving and aligning relevant stakeholders from different academic and professional backgrounds.
The case for this
study was a group discussion with members of a multidisciplinary consortium that works on developing a personalized eHealth intervention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Using stakeholder mapping, health and medicine experts, big data scientists, software developers, and an innovation manager (N=8) were invited to participate. The discussion was based on a user scenario and structured according to the Six Thinking Hats of de Bono, representing 6 different types of thinking. The discussion was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically with the use of ATLAS.ti software.
First, informative and intuitive thinking served the preparatory purpose of familiarization with the project details and other participants. Second, positive and critical thinking constituted the body of the discussion and resulted in an in-depth conversation. Third, creative and organizational thinking were action oriented and focused on solutions and planning to safeguard future progress. The participants repeatedly reflected on various intervention-related themes, ranging from intervention content to technical functionalities and from legal requirements to implementation in practice. Moreover, project-related matters were discussed, including stakeholder management and time and budget constraints.
This paper demonstrates how cocreation can be of value for multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement and alignment. Based on stakeholder mapping (with whom to discuss), a dream user scenario (what to discuss), and the Six Thinking Hats of de Bono (how to discuss), the participants shared information, discussed differences, searched for solutions, and moved toward a collective approach regarding intervention development. The lessons learned may further improve the understanding of how cocreation can contribute to multidisciplinary collaboration.