Quality indicators for implementation of safety promotion: Towards valid and reliable global certification of local programmes

Abstract

The theoretical underpinnings of safety promotion have not yet been integrated with implementation practice to ascertain between-community programme quality. This study sets out to develop a framework for verifying of the quality of community-based safety-promotion programmes in the global context. We analysed the certification indicators deployed in the international Safe Community movement in light of systems theory. Data were collected from focus group interviews with representatives from 10 certified Swedish communities and then analysed by qualitative methods. The community representatives were found to have used the present indicators mainly for marketing the safety-promotion concept to stakeholders rather than as benchmarks for safety practice. When appraised in regard to systems theory, it was found that the indicators did not cover important aspects of health-services implementation. Attainment of outcomes at the population level was not included. Consequently, that information about programme effects in high-risk groups and in risk environments could be neglected. We conclude that programme processes and outcomes at both organisational and population levels must be assessed when the quality of safety-promotion programmes is being certified. A revised set of indicators for certification of safety-promotion programmes fulfilling these criteria is presented.

Overcoming the organization–practice barrier in sports injury prevention: A nonhierarchical organizational model

“…The O–P membrane can therefore be thought of as an information infrastructure that facilitates vertical communication between sportspersons and the managers and experts involved with sports organization, as well as horizontal communication among sportspersons from different parts of the organization. Organizationally and technically, the membrane is a dynamic infrastructure where components can be added, changed, and removed depending on their performance as facilitators for communication (Timpka et al., ). Some components of the O–P membrane described in this study can be compared with the knowledge transfer group in the knowledge transfer scheme (KTS) for bridging the gap between science and practice in sports injury prevention (Verhagen et al., ).…”

Examining quality function deployment in safety promotion in Sweden

“…We interpret these dissonances as a sufficient Mandate the community planner to systematically observe the extent of sleeping disturbance and to report this argument to consider both objective (injury rates) and subjective ( perceived safety) measures in the indicators for safety in the Safe Community movement. Therefore, when formulating indicators for an extended Safe Housing programme in the Safe Community movement, we suggest keeping the indicator on the establishment of an infrastructure for cooperation between different local government sectors and professional stakeholders as the central dimension, and extending it to include direct interaction with laypersons (Timpka et al, 2011). Our results are consistent with the idea that conditions in housing environments encompass social inequalities that are manifested in the distribution of health and safety (Dunn, 2000;Dunn et al, 2006;Laflamme et al, 2009;Braubach and Fairburn, 2010).…”

“…However, gaps may still exist between public health professionals and laypersons. In a study of the framework used to certify programmes in the Safe Community movement (Timpka et al, 2011), it was found that communication with the lay population was not included in the requirements for certification. The authors also reported that few structural means to support transfer of information about safety between laypersons and public health professionals in the community were available.…”

Análise da aplicação do método desdobramento da função qualidade “QFD” em serviços preventivos de polícia

“…Corroborando esse argumento, Timpka et al (2012) constataram que são raros os instrumentos de apoio utilizados pelos gestores públicos na identificação e transferência de necessidades comunitárias de segurança. Isto tem contribuído para a concepção de programas preventivos de segurança sem a consideração das demandas e necessidades de comunidades (KULLBERG et al, 2013).…”