Search

Organizational leaders are essential in implementing, interpreting, and even proactively initiating changes for human resource (HR) functions to enhance workplace productivity and well‐being. However, recent studies have cautioned that providing positive and supportive leadership usually drains these organizational leaders. Although the literature has shed light on how leaders can use self‐care strategies to recharge, researchers and HR professionals know relatively little about (1) what specific self‐care actions leaders can take and (2) how external crises such as COVID‐19 constrain leaders' self‐care actions. To identify specific leaders' self‐care behaviors, which we refer to as oxygen masks, we interviewed 41 healthcare managers in Australia during the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020. We presented a behavioral typology summarizing distinct oxygen masks that leaders used at different points in time. These oxygen masks include improving physical well‐being, improving emotional/spiritual/social well‐being, fulfilling managerial roles, and seeking collegial and organizational support. Moreover, we concluded that the COVID‐19 restrictions made some of these oxygen masks less accessible, negatively impacting leaders' well‐being. Our research conclusions have implications for theory and future studies on extending the literature associated with leadership development, leaders' resilience, and leaders' well‐being. The results also provide HR professionals with practical suggestions about assisting line managers in improving their self‐care and sustaining their leadership effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Worldwide, governments employ health technology assessment (HTA) in healthcare funding decision making. Requests to include public perspectives in this are increasing, with the idea being that the public can identify social values to guide policy development, increasing the transparency and accountability of government decision making.Objective: To understand the perspectives of the Canadian public on the rationale and design of public involvement in HTA.Design: A demographically representative sample of residents of a Canadian province was selected to take part in two sets of two focus groups (sixteen people for the first set and twenty for the second set).Results: Participants were suspicious of the interests driving various stakeholders involved in HTA. They saw the public as uniquely impartial though also lacking knowledge about health technologies. Participants were also suspicious of personal biases and commended mechanisms to reduce their impact. Participants suggested various involvement methods, such as focus groups, citizens' juries and surveys, noting advantages and disadvantages belonging to each and commending a combination.Discussion and Conclusions: We identified a lack of public understanding of how decisions are made and distrust concerning whose interests and values are being considered. Public involvement was seen as a way of providing information to the public and ascertaining their views and values. Participants suggested that public involvement should employ a mixed-methods strategy to support informed debate and participation of a large number of people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world.Methods: We drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the "public" and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world.Results: The goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA process.Conclusions: There are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Governments use a variety of processes to incorporate public perspectives into policymaking, but few studies have evaluated these processes from participants' point of view. Objective: The objective of this study was twofold: to understand the perspectives of selected stakeholders with regard to involvement processes used by Australian Advisory Committees to engage the public and patients; and to identify barriers and facilitators to participation. Design: Twelve semi‐structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in health technology funding decisions in Australia. Data were collected and analysed using a theoretical framework created by Rowe and Frewer, but adapted to more fully acknowledge issues of power and influence. Results: Stakeholder groups disagreed as to what constitutes effective and inclusive patient involvement. Barriers reported by interviewees included poor communication, a lack of transparency, unworkable deadlines, and inadequate representativeness. Also described were problems associated with defining the task for patients and their advocates and with the timing of patient input in the decision‐making process. Interviewees suggested that patient participation could be improved by increasing the number of patient organizations engaged in processes and including those organizations at different stages of decision making, especially earlier. Conclusions: The different evaluations made by stakeholder groups appear to be underpinned by contrasting conceptions of public involvement and its value, in line with Graham Martin's work which distinguishes between ‘technocratic’ and ‘democratic’ public involvement. Understanding stakeholders' perspectives and the contrasting conceptions of public involvement could foster future agreement on which processes should be used to involve the public in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]