Search

Training staff and volunteers is an important aspect of successful program implementation. This paper follows Part A of an evaluation of the Special Olympics Canada (SOC) Coaching Young Athletes Training course. Consistent with Kirkpatrick's four-level model of training evaluation, Part A evaluated program leaders' reactions to (level 1) and immediate learning from (level 2) the training. This Part B paper covers "on the job" behavior (level 3). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with youth program leaders (n = 11) from eight provinces. Overall, participants felt that more training related to working with children with autism and promoting positive athlete behavior was needed. The findings also lead us to suggest that program leaders need to develop a more fulsome understanding of how to foster skill mastery, including how to practice the same skill in many and varied ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The integration of Primary Care (PC) into broader health systems has been a goal in jurisdictions around the world. Efforts to achieve integration at the meso-level have drawn particular attention, but there are few actionable recommendations for how to enact a 'pro-integration culture' amongst government and PC governance bodies. This paper describes pragmatic integration activity undertaken by meso-level participants in Alberta, Canada, and suggests ways this activity may be generalizable to other health systems. Methods: 11 semi-structured interviews with nine key informants from meso-level organizations were selected from a larger qualitative study examining healthcare policy development and implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selected interviews focused on participants' experiences and efforts to 'do' integration as they responded to Alberta's first wave of the Omicron variant in September 2021. An interpretive descriptive approach was used to identify repeating cycles in the integration context, and pragmatic integration activities. Results: As Omicron arrived in Alberta, integration and relations between meso-level PC and central health system participants were tense, but efforts to improve the situation were successfully made. In this context of cycling relationships, staffing changes made in reaction to exogenous shocks and political pressures were clear influences on integration. However, participants also engaged in specific behaviours that advanced a pro-integration culture. They did so by: signaling value through staffing and resource choices; speaking and enacting personal and group commitments to collaboration; persevering; and practicing bi-directional communication through formal and informal channels. Conclusions: Achieving PC integration involves not just the reactive work of responding to exogenous factors, but also the proactive work of enacting cultural, relationship, and communication behaviors. These behaviors may support integration regardless of the shocks, staff turnover, and relational freeze-thaw cycles experienced by any health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]