Use of concurrent mixed methods combining concept mapping and focus groups to adapt a health equity tool in Canada |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Université Laval, Québec, Canada;2. Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada;3. Direction de santé publique de la Montérégie, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada;4. Université de Montréal School of Public Health (ESPUM), Université de Montréal Public Health Research Institute (IRSPUM), Québec, Canada;1. Research, M&E Associates (REMA), Unit House, Victoria Avenue, P.O. Box 1792, Blantyre, Malawi;2. The School of Management Studies, 4th Floor, Leslie Commerce Building, Engineering Mall Upper Campus, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7708, South Africa;1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX75390-9066, USA;2. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, 2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX 75390, USA;3. Moncrief Cancer Institute, 400 W. Magnolia Ave, Fort Worth, TX 76104, USA;1. Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, Padova, Italy;2. Social Service Melzo and Liscate,Via Vittorio Emanuele, Melzo (Mi), 20066, Italy;1. Department of Community Health and Network Coordination, National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, No. 1, Yersin Street, Hanoi, Vietnam;2. School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia;3. Collaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia;4. Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | The aim of this project was to identify and prioritize a set of conditions to be considered for incorporating a health equity tool into public health practice. Concept mapping and focus groups were implemented as complementary methods to investigate the conditions of use of a health equity tool by public health organizations in Quebec. Using a hybrid integrated research design is a richer way to address the complexity of questions emerging from intervention and planning settings. This approach provides a deeper, operational, and contextualized understanding of research results involving different professional and organizational cultures, and thereby supports the decision-making process. Concept mapping served to identify and prioritize in a limited timeframe the conditions to be considered for incorporation into a health equity tool into public health practices. Focus groups then provided a more refined understanding of the barriers, issues, and facilitating factors surrounding the tools adoption, helped distinguish among participants’ perspectives based on functional roles and organizational contexts, and clarified some apparently contradictory results from the concept map. The combined use of these two techniques brought the strengths of each approach to bear, thereby overcoming some of the respective limitations of concept mapping and focus groups. This design is appropriate for investigating targets with multiple levels of complexity. |
| |
| Keywords: | Methodology Mixed methods Concept mapping Focus groups Health equity Public health practices |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
