Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing

Abstract

Background Participatory design methods are a key component of designing tailored implementation strategies. These methods vary in the resources required to execute and analyze their outputs. No work to date has examined the extent to which the output obtained from different approaches to participatory design varies. Methods We concurrently used two separate participatory design methods: (1) field observations and qualitative interviews (i.e., traditional contextual inquiry) and (2) rapid crowd sourcing (an innovation tournament). Our goal was to generate and compare information to tailor implementation strategies to increase the use of evidence-based data collection practices among one-to-one aides working with children with autism. Each method was executed and analyzed by study team members blinded to the output of the other method. We estimated the personnel time and monetary costs associated with each method to further facilitate comparison. Results Observations and interviews generated nearly double the number of implementation strategies (n = 26) than did the innovation tournament (n = 14). When strategies were classified into implementation strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, there was considerable overlap in the content of identified strategies. However, strategies derived from observations and interviews were more specific than those from the innovation tournament. Five strategies (13%) reflected content unique to observations and interviews and 3 (8%) strategies were unique to the innovation tournament. Only observations and interviews identified implementation strategies related to adapting and tailoring to context; only the innovation tournament identified implementation strategies that used incentives. Observations and interviews required more than three times the personnel hours than the innovation tournament, but the innovation tournament was more costly overall due to the technological platform used. Conclusions There was substantial overlap in content derived from observations and interviews and the innovation tournament, although there was greater specificity in the findings from observations and interviews. However, the innovation tournament yielded unique information. To select the best participatory design approach to inform implementation strategy design for a particular context, researchers should carefully consider unique advantages of each method and weigh the resources available to invest in the process.

Comparison of methods to engage diverse stakeholder populations in prioritizing PrEP implementation strategies for testing in resource-limited settings: a cross-sectional study

“…The primary limitation of this analysis is that the PrEPARE study was not designed to directly compare the strategy prioritization methodologies. However, there is still value in assessing the comparative usefulness of these methodologies as they were applied in practice and to inform future structured experiments, as has been done in studies comparing the time, resources, and yield of strategy elicitation exercises [ 63 ]. As the 16 implementation strategies were thematically identified through prior qualitative work, we were unable to systematically specify the strategies according as per Proctor et al [ 64 ].…”

Co-designing strategies to implement long-acting injectable PrEP for sexual minority men in Chicago: a study protocol for an innovation tournament and implementation mapping

“…They follow a “bottom-up” approach that allows end-users to provide ideas, followed by a structured process of evaluation. Literature has demonstrated the effectiveness of this participatory approach in generating novel solutions to intractable problems in healthcare [ 5 , 7 ]. Further, innovation tournaments can produce input for the design of implementation strategies [ 5 , 8 ].…”