Using Co-Design and Engagement Principles for Health System Transformation: Our Lessons Learned
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The Middlesex London Ontario Health Team (ML OHT), comprised of multiple health and social care partners, aims to support the primary and secondary healthcare needs of people living in London-Middlesex, Ontario, Canada. Co-design and engagement approaches have been intentionally and carefully embedded in all levels of the OHT work. The OHT applies co-design and engagement principles through the co-leadership of patient/caregiver partners on governing committees and strategic planning, the involvement of patients/caregivers on project implementation and evaluation working groups, and through the development of a patient/caregiver council. Through relationships with local patients/clients, caregiver partners, providers, and health system administrators, co-design processes are being used to collectively identify, develop, implement, and evaluate health system improvement strategies. Partnerships with patients and caregivers are guided by an equity, diversity, and inclusion matrix to ensure patient/caregiver representation aligns with the demographics of our local population. Workshop Purpose: Over our two-year journey, we have learned a lot about co-design and engagement practices, and how to embed approaches into an integrated health system. Embedding engagement practices into every level of the structure, and every stream of work, is an ongoing, continuous learning journey. The ML OHT has recently focused on building partnerships with underserved and underrepresented populations. Through this work, the team has adjusted engagement practices to align with the needs and desires of specific populations. During this workshop, we hope the audience can learn from our experiences, and share some of their own insights and learnings. Short Statement: Embedding co-design and engagement practices into an integrated health system structure from bottom to top, is an ongoing, continuous learning journey. ML OHT would like to share lessons learned and hear from the audience about ways to adjust practices for specific populations. Objectives and Workshop Structure: The interactive workshop structure and objectives, co-presented by ML OHT team members (staff members and patient/caregiver partner), will include: 1. Introduction and Background (25mins) - i) Share our co-design structure and framework, ii) Discuss how we evaluate our co-design participation and identify gaps; iii) Review specific engagement strategies for different groups/populations; iv) Describe how to apply co-design principles and findings to strategy/program development and operations; and, 2. Interactive Case Study (20mins) - v) Conduct an interactive case study exercise where audience members can share their own experiences and build a custom engagement strategy for unique stakeholder groups; and 3. Sharing Learnings and Closing (15mins) Audience and Engagement: This interactive workshop would be appropriate for anyone with a role in system improvement (including providers, patients/caregivers, leaders, researchers) with various levels of co-design experiences, from novice to expert. Key Messages: Following the presentation, participants will leave with the following messages: i) meaningful co-design takes time and is a continuous learning journey, ii) consideration of co-design approaches is needed at all levels of a strategy (e.g. on-the-ground implementation work, up to the governance table), iii) evaluation and ongoing assessment of co-design participation is necessary to ensure appropriate engagement, and iv) co-design approaches should be appropriately adjusted to meet the needs of the population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,094 | 0,059 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,033 |
| Communication savante | 0,019 | 0,023 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,018 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,017 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».