Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Under the ever-dynamic dynamism in healthcare management, one fact holds without a speck of doubt: optimization of program delivery can be a key factor for the accomplishment of enhanced patient outcomes and operational efficiency. This paper conducts a comparative analysis between Agile and traditional management approaches to optimizing healthcare programs, thus responding to the major gap in the literature on how applicable Agile methodologies are in healthcare settings.Our mixed-methods research design combined quantitative analyses with qualitative data for 100 healthcare optimization initiatives across 20 diversified hospital systems in North America and Europe: half led with Agile methods and half led with traditional management approaches. Further, there was qualitative data drawn from semi-structured interviews with 50 administrators and program managers in healthcare. Performance indicators assessed project completion time, budget adherence, satisfaction of stakeholders, adaptability to change, and measurable health outcomes.Results indicate that Agile-managed programs completed 28% faster (p < 0.001) and attained 23% greater scores in terms of stakeholder satisfaction (p < 0.01) than traditionally managed initiatives. Those who followed Agile also demonstrated significantly more adaptiveness to changes in regulation and emerging health crises, with a 35% greater rate of successful mid-project adjustments. The traditional approaches did show slightly better adherence to the budget (5% difference, p < 0.05). Although overall health outcomes did not differ appreciably between the methodologies, patient satisfaction metrics strongly favored Agile-managed programs: 12% higher, p < 0.05.The qualitative analysis brought out some key factors contributing to Agile’s success: better communication between □isciclines, quick iteration cycles, an□ more interaction an□ engagement of stakehol□ers □uring the whole croject cycle. Challenges in the way of imclementing Agile were also i□entifie□; the biggest challenges relate to changes in organizational culture an□ early resistance from hierarchies that exist in tra□itional healthcare organizations.These fin□ings suggest that Agile metho□s offer significant benefits in healthcare crogram management, carticularly in contexts requiring raci□ a□actation an□continuous imcrovement. However, the stu□y also highlights the imcortance of tailore imclementation strategies that account for the unique comclexities of healthcare environments.This study adds to the growing evidence base that supports Agile methodologies across application areas outside software development. We discuss its implications for healthcare administrators, policymakers, and educators, with recommendations for infusing Agile practices in curricula developed for healthcare management and professional development. The future research direction is proposed to be longitudinal and hybrid model studies combining the elements of Agile and traditional approaches for optimal healthcare program management.
Under the ever-dynamic dynamism in healthcare management, one fact holds without a speck of doubt: optimization of program delivery can be a key factor for the accomplishment of enhanced patient outcomes and operational efficiency. This paper conducts a comparative analysis between Agile and traditional management approaches to optimizing healthcare programs, thus responding to the major gap in the literature on how applicable Agile methodologies are in healthcare settings.Our mixed-methods research design combined quantitative analyses with qualitative data for 100 healthcare optimization initiatives across 20 diversified hospital systems in North America and Europe: half led with Agile methods and half led with traditional management approaches. Further, there was qualitative data drawn from semi-structured interviews with 50 administrators and program managers in healthcare. Performance indicators assessed project completion time, budget adherence, satisfaction of stakeholders, adaptability to change, and measurable health outcomes.Results indicate that Agile-managed programs completed 28% faster (p < 0.001) and attained 23% greater scores in terms of stakeholder satisfaction (p < 0.01) than traditionally managed initiatives. Those who followed Agile also demonstrated significantly more adaptiveness to changes in regulation and emerging health crises, with a 35% greater rate of successful mid-project adjustments. The traditional approaches did show slightly better adherence to the budget (5% difference, p < 0.05). Although overall health outcomes did not differ appreciably between the methodologies, patient satisfaction metrics strongly favored Agile-managed programs: 12% higher, p < 0.05.The qualitative analysis brought out some key factors contributing to Agile’s success: better communication between □isciclines, quick iteration cycles, an□ more interaction an□ engagement of stakehol□ers □uring the whole croject cycle. Challenges in the way of imclementing Agile were also i□entifie□; the biggest challenges relate to changes in organizational culture an□ early resistance from hierarchies that exist in tra□itional healthcare organizations.These fin□ings suggest that Agile metho□s offer significant benefits in healthcare crogram management, carticularly in contexts requiring raci□ a□actation an□continuous imcrovement. However, the stu□y also highlights the imcortance of tailore imclementation strategies that account for the unique comclexities of healthcare environments.This study adds to the growing evidence base that supports Agile methodologies across application areas outside software development. We discuss its implications for healthcare administrators, policymakers, and educators, with recommendations for infusing Agile practices in curricula developed for healthcare management and professional development. The future research direction is proposed to be longitudinal and hybrid model studies combining the elements of Agile and traditional approaches for optimal healthcare program management.
Background: The U.S. population continues to age, and the identification of disparities in geriatric care -so that they may be understood and solutions addressed - is ever more critical. A systematic review is presented on current disparities found in access to care for geriatric diseases as well as in the delivery of care within the United States. Methods: A comprehensive search for the available literature from 2010 to 2024 was carried out through the PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases in peer-reviewed journals. Studies that focused on disparities in access and provision of geriatric care for adults aged 65 years and above within the U.S. health system were included in this study. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used in the quality appraisal of studies included. Results: Of the total number of 5,218 studies that were identified initially, 132 studies were eligible for inclusion. Our analysis uncovered continued inequity in geriatric care across racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic lines. Findings include: (1) low rates of early diagnosis and delayed treatment of dementia and Alzheimer's among minority seniors, who were found to be 2.3 times more likely for African Americans and 1.9 times more likely for Hispanics than their white counterparts; (2) inability to access high-level geriatric care in regions outside of metropolitan areas, where it was identified that older adults had to commute, on average, 3.2 times farther to the nearest provider; (3) socioeconomic factors found to present obstacles to home health and long-term care, with seniors from a lower income bracket 1.8 times more likely to be placed in a poor-quality nursing home; and (4) disparities in the quality of end-of-life care for elders of lower socioeconomic status, with African Americans and Hispanics being respectively 38% and 51% less likely to use hospice care. Conclusion: This review has demonstrated that important and persistent disparities exist in the availability and delivery of geriatric care in the United States. Of the 132 studies, 34 directed their efforts toward reducing interventions to have such disparities with salutary results coming from culturally tailored community-based approaches. Multipronged interventions that include policy revision, workforce development, and community-based initiatives hold promise for reducing these disparities. This should be an area of focus for future targeted interventions, which should, therefore, be evaluated for effectiveness in reducing disparities in health outcomes for all older adults. Keywords: health disparities, geriatric care, access to care, care delivery, systematic review
BackgroundCancer disparities persist in the United States, with significant variations in incidence, mortality, and survival rates across different population groups. This systematic review aims to synthesize current evidence on the relationship between social determinants of health and cancer disparities, and to identify effective interventions for promoting equitable cancer prevention and control.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2024. Studies were included if they examined the association between social determinants (e.g., socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, education, healthcare access) and cancer outcomes, or evaluated interventions addressing these factors. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality using standardized tools.ResultsOf 3,247 initially identified studies, 142 met inclusion criteria. The review found strong evidence linking various social determinants to cancer disparities, particularly in screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and survival outcomes. Socioeconomic status and healthcare access were the most frequently studied determinants. Effective interventions identified included patient navigation programs, community-based education initiatives, and policy changes to expand insurance coverage. However, the quality and long-term impact of many interventions were limited by short follow-up periods and small sample sizes.ConclusionThis systematic review confirms the significant role of social determinants in perpetuating cancer disparities and highlights promising strategies for addressing these inequities. Future research should focus on developing and evaluating multilevel interventions that target both individual and structural determinants. Policy makers and healthcare providers should prioritize evidence-based approaches to reduce social barriers and promote equitable cancer prevention and control.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.