2019/06/28 by Theresia Krieger, Nicolle Boumans, Nicolle P. G. Boumans +2 · 8 citations
Engineering · Health Professions · Medicine · Nursing · #Business #Community Health and Development #Computer science #Context (archaeology) #Engineering #Focus group #Health Policy Implementation Science #Intervention (counseling) #Knowledge management #Medicine #Mental Health and Patient Involvement #Nursing #Political science #Process management #Program management #Project charter #Project management #Project stakeholder #Psychological intervention #Public relations #Risk management #Stakeholder #Stakeholder analysis #Stakeholder engagement #Systems engineering
paper · doi:10.1111/scs.12723
published in Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 34(1), 215-229 (Wiley)
crossref issued 2019/06/28 · crossref published 2019/06/28 · crossref published-online 2019/06/28 · openalex publication_date 2019/06/28 · crossref created 2019/06/28 · openalex created_date 2019/07/12 · crossref published-print 2020/03/01 · crossref deposited 2023/09/07 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29 · crossref indexed 2026/08/02
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders are important contributors in the implementation of a complex public health intervention. During the development phase of an implementation, alongside careful design of its components and investing in the exploration of the dynamic multi-stakeholder stroke rehabilitation setting, it is essential to assess possible implementation risks. Systematic stakeholder and risk analyses can guide the exploration process and enable teams involved in complex interventions to develop context-tailored implementation management instruments. PURPOSE: To develop instruments that facilitate the implementation of the complex stroke caregiver intervention project in the real-life support system. METHODS: Systematic stakeholder and risk analyses were conducted composing five activities. Project stakeholders were identified, classified and assessed using a top-down approach, while implementation risks were identified and assessed by applying a bottom-up approach. Data were collected through interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Based on the knowledge provided by the stakeholders, two context-tailored implementation management instruments were designed with a top-down approach: (1) a comprehensive 'stakeholder-risk atlas' providing individual stakeholder information, such as role, access, contribution, power and interest, expectations, perceived risks and specific engagement activities and (2) an overall 'project implementation strategy' concentrating on communication, transparency, network building and professionalism. CONCLUSION: Complex interventions will benefit from early and comprehensive stakeholder and risk analyses. The early involvement of stakeholders, with their insightful knowledge, enables the research team to develop context-tailored implementation management instruments. Instruments will support the team during implementation and may impact positively on the outcome of the intervention. Knowledge can be obtained by combining top-down and bottom-up working approaches.