Fear of reprisal and change agency in the public health and social service system: Protocol for a sequential mixed methods study

Abract Background: Since they are key witnesses to the systemic difficulties and social inequities experienced by vulnerable patients, health and social service (HSS) professionals and clinical managers must act as change agents. Using their expertise to achieve greater social justice, change agents employ a wide range of actions that span a continuum from the clinical (microsystem) to the societal (macrosystem) sphere and involve actors inside and outside the HSS system. Typically, however, clinical professionals and managers act in a circumscribed manner, that is, within the clinical sphere and with patients and colleagues. Among the hypotheses explaining this reduced scope of action is the fear of reprisal. Little is known about the prevalence of this fear and its complex dynamics. Objective: The overall aim is to gain a better understanding of the complex dynamic process leading to clinical professionals’ and managers’ fear of reprisal in their change agent actions and senior administrators’ and managers’ determination of wrongdoing. The objectives are (1) to estimate the prevalence of fear of reprisal among clinical professionals and managers; (2) to identify the factors involved in (a) the emergence of this fear among clinical professionals and managers, and (b) the determination of wrongdoing by senior administrators and managers; (3) to describe the process of emergence of (a) the fear of reprisal among clinical professionals and managers, and (b) the determination of wrongdoing by senior administrators and managers; and (4) to document the legal and ethical issues associated with the factors identified (objective 2) and the processes described (objective 3). Methods: Based on the Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect model, a 3-part sequential mixed methods design will include (1) a web-based survey (objective 1), (2) a qualitative grounded theory design (objectives 2 and 3), and (3) legal and ethical analysis (objective 4). Survey: 77,794 clinical profession