Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Using co-creation and multi-criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations.|
|Authors:||Mortimer, Duncan;Iezzi, Angelo;Dickins, Marissa;Johnstone, Georgina;Lowthian, Judy;Enticott, Joanne;Ogrin, Rajna|
|Affiliation:||Centre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia|
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Department of General Practice, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Austin Health Clinical School, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Bolton Clarke Research Institute, Bolton Clarke, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Southern Synergy, Department of Psychiatry at Monash Health, Southern Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
|Citation:||Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2019; online first: 11 June|
|Abstract:||Navigating treatment pathways remains a challenge for populations with complex needs due to bottlenecks, service gaps and access barriers. The application of novel methods may be required to identify and remedy such problems. To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action. Co-creation and multi-criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study. Community-dwelling sample of older women living alone (OWLA), residing in Melbourne, Australia (n = 13-37). Convenience sample of (n = 11) representatives from providers and patient organizations. Novel interventions co-created to support health, well-being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care. Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA. The co-creation process generated a list of ten interventions. Both OWLA and stakeholders considered a broad range of criteria when evaluating the relative merits of these ten interventions and a "Do Nothing" alternative. Combining criterion weights with performance ratings yielded a consistent set of high priority interventions, with "Handy Help," "Volunteer Drivers" and "Exercise Buddies" most highly ranked by both OWLA and stakeholder samples. The present study described and demonstrated the use of multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize a set of novel interventions generated via a co-creation process. Application of this approach can add community voice to the policy debate and begin to bridge the gap in service provision for underserved populations.|
multi-criteria decision analysis
|Appears in Collections:||Journal articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.