Search

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) provide an important point of contact through which people who use performance and image enhancing drugs (PIEDs) could access reliable information, advice, and interventions on a range of PIEDs, their use and related harms. However, HCPs often report difficulties engaging and building rapport with people who use PIEDs, and research suggests that they often lack specialist knowledge on these substances. Providing credible evidence-based resources to support HCPs is thus important. However, educational materials in this area are generally absent and the ones that exist have not been assessed for their utility in the HCP workforce. This paper examines the acceptability and usability of a PIED e-learning module (the Dopinglinkki e-module) targeted at HCPs in three EU Member States and Australia.Methods: A standardised two stage, mixed methodology was implemented. Stage 1 involved HCPs completing the e-module and completing an online survey (N = 77). Stage 2 involved conducting individual structured interviews with a subset of survey respondents (N = 37). Normalisation Process Theory and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were used as conceptual lenses.Findings: The e-module provided information that was perceived as useful for HCPs' current and future practice. However, several individual, organisational and societal level barriers were reported as preventing the e-module becoming an accepted and normalised aspect of the HCP workforce, including the need for up to date evidence, the time-consuming nature of completing the e-module, lack of organisational support, the use of over-complex language, and the module's potential to reinforce the stigmatisation of PIEDs.Conclusion: Providing credible evidence-based resources to support HCPs' knowledge development is important. Evidence-based and theory informed interventions are needed to equip HCPs with knowledge that can aid culturally sensitive interactions and effective engagement with people who use PIEDs. Reflecting on our study findings, it is important that the development of interventions should include the voices of both HCP and those using PIEDs, and that careful consideration is given to the various factors that may act as a barrier to effective implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]