|
Stakeholders in different roles had different information needs; some required summarised findings, others required detailed research reports
|
Report structure was adjusted to: 1-page key messages; 3-page executive summary; 25-page full report
|
|
The reports needed to be accessible and useful for a wide audience, including non-researchers; some stakeholders required more guidance to understand and use the reports
|
Report content was adjusted (e.g. to add an explanation of theory, to explain data trends, to add diagrams, to add a section on ‘how to use this report’)
|
|
Data tables were difficult for some stakeholders to understand and interpret
|
Presentation of health indicator and service delivery data was changed from table format to box-and-whisker-plot graphsa
|
|
Some stakeholders did not participate in the surveys because they lacked confidence in their data analysis skills
|
A link to an audio-visual resource was added to support the text explanation of how to interpret box-and-whisker-plot graphsa
|
|
Use of ‘academic-style’ language was a barrier to engaging with the reports
|
Plain language summaries were developed to accompany all subsequent reports
|
|
Some stakeholders did not participate in surveys because they perceived them to target those in other roles (e.g. policy officers perceiving the surveys targeted clinicians)
|
Statements on the advantages of participation by different professional groups were added to report summaries and emails
|
|
Some stakeholders found the surveys too long and/or considered the questions too repetitious
|
Survey questions were reduced in number across phase surveys; they were refined and reduced several times as the ESP project progressed
|
|
Many stakeholders who were motivated to participate had competing work demands and were time poor
|
Survey times were extended; email reminders were sent to encourage input
|
|
Those who participated in multiple ESP phases and cycles were committing considerable time; ‘survey fatigue’ was identified as a risk
|
Two project phases (one identifying barriers/enablers and one suggesting improvement strategies) were merged to reduce the number of phase surveys and reports in each ESP cycle
|
|
ESP emails were easily overlooked by key stakeholders due to high volumes of emails received
|
Coloured banners, photos and graphics were added to emails for more visual impact
|
|
ESP final reports were perceived to be large, partly because aggregated and trend data were included as appendices
|
Separate data supplements were published; they accompanied the ESP final reports
|
|
Expert input to data analysis and effective use of networks were important for stakeholder engagement
|
An expert/lead clinician in each area of care was asked to assist with data analysis, co-author ESP reports and disseminate the reports through their professional networks
|
|
CQI facilitators were vital for promoting the ESP project and facilitating local engagement
|
The team encouraged project communications and report dissemination through CQI practitioners/leaders in the CQI network
|
|
Indigenous stakeholders were mainly participating through group (rather than individual) survey responses
|
Group input was encouraged through project communications, in recognition of the critical importance of Indigenous input
|
|
A resource was needed to encourage and support group discussion and interpretation
|
A group facilitation guide was developed and promoted; links to the guide were embedded in report summaries and emails
|
|
One-page overviews of key findings in each area of care were suggested as a way of encouraging stakeholders to engage with the findings and access the ESP final reports
|
One-page overviews of key findings were produced and distributed
|
|
Key messages for action were needed to promote the use of ESP findings in each area of care
|
Key messages for action were developed from ESP findings; they were included in ESP reports and published as plain language summaries
|
|
Findings needed to be presented in a variety of formats to suit different work needs and learning styles
|
Findings were published online in all developed formats – reports, summaries, PowerPoint presentations, journal articles
|
|
ESP findings needed to be widely and easily accessible in the longer term; stakeholders intended to use the reports to resource future work tasks and information needs
|
ESP findings were published on research institution websites and in open web-based repositories for Indigenous health and policy publications
|
