Search

This paper reflects on the value of diary methods in the context of a qualitative, longitudinal narrative inquiry exploring the higher education decision-making of further education students in England. Event-based diaries were used alongside interviews and focus groups over a 14-month period to gain in-depth insights into the reasons and influences informing their decision-making trajectories. I explore the challenges, successful approaches and advantages of employing diary methods with young people in this context. Challenges consisted of maintaining participant engagement, which was overcome by combining methods and incorporating a reactive co-participatory element. Yet, a number of advantages emerged from participants' engagement with diary keeping which enhanced the richness of the data; this inspired deeper reflections on decision-making and influences and provided a private space for participants to disclose personal difficulties that could not be obtained via interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To increase understanding about how evaluations of health policy initiatives are commissioned, conducted and used. Methods: A mapping exercise was conducted to identify evaluation of initiatives promoted by the White Paper 'Our health, our care, our say' in the English NHS. All evaluations were subjected to critical appraisal and 21 were purposively selected as case studies, involving documentary analysis and 60 interviews with those commissioning, conducting and affected by the evaluation. Results: Variation in the types of evaluation being undertaken did not reflect the importance of the initiatives being evaluated. Most evaluations collected evidence about uptake, processes of care and users' perceptions. While some provided useful information about how initiatives could be improved, few provided robust evidence about the benefits or costs of the initiatives. Those who commissioned evaluations had similar concerns to those who conducted them. There was a commitment to the concept of evaluation but little clarity about how findings would be used. Evaluation was often commissioned too late to influence decisions about implementation. Compromises over research design and difficulties collecting data limited the potential to provide robust evidence about benefits. There were tensions between the desire of evaluators for methodological rigour and the needs of service providers for swift, contextually relevant findings. There were concerns about the transparency of methods and results. Conclusions: Considerable public resources are committed to evaluation, but this investment is less productive than it could be. This article specifies several ways in which the use of evaluation of initiatives in health and social care could be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research which investigated challenges associated with the use of systematic review evidence in the decommissioning procedure for ineffective health services. It reports study details which include interviewing of Primary Care Trusts (PCT) health care commissioners in England, data collection about usage of various therapeutic interventions, and the categorization of evidence gathered. A brief overview of the decommissioning process being handled by clinicians is given.