Using co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations

Duncan Mortimer, Angelo Iezzi, Marissa Dickins, Georgie Johnstone, Judy Lowthian, Joanne Enticott, Rajna Ogrin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: 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. Objective: To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action. Design: Co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study. Setting and participants: 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. Interventions: Novel interventions co‐created to support health, well‐being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care. Main outcome measures: Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA. Results: 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. Discussion and conclusions: 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.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages11
JournalHealth Expectations
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 11 Jun 2019

Keywords

  • co‐creation
  • multi‐criteria decision analysis
  • patient‐centred policy

Cite this

@article{1307289c3ae44392a3ad6ed56039d381,
title = "Using co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations",
abstract = "Background: 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. Objective: To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action. Design: Co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study. Setting and participants: 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. Interventions: Novel interventions co‐created to support health, well‐being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care. Main outcome measures: Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA. Results: 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. Discussion and conclusions: 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.",
keywords = "co‐creation, multi‐criteria decision analysis, patient‐centred policy",
author = "Duncan Mortimer and Angelo Iezzi and Marissa Dickins and Georgie Johnstone and Judy Lowthian and Joanne Enticott and Rajna Ogrin",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1111/hex.12923",
language = "English",
journal = "Health Expectations",
issn = "1369-6513",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Using co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations. / Mortimer, Duncan; Iezzi, Angelo; Dickins, Marissa; Johnstone, Georgie; Lowthian, Judy; Enticott, Joanne; Ogrin, Rajna.

In: Health Expectations, 11.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations

AU - Mortimer, Duncan

AU - Iezzi, Angelo

AU - Dickins, Marissa

AU - Johnstone, Georgie

AU - Lowthian, Judy

AU - Enticott, Joanne

AU - Ogrin, Rajna

PY - 2019/6/11

Y1 - 2019/6/11

N2 - Background: 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. Objective: To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action. Design: Co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study. Setting and participants: 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. Interventions: Novel interventions co‐created to support health, well‐being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care. Main outcome measures: Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA. Results: 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. Discussion and conclusions: 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.

AB - Background: 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. Objective: To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action. Design: Co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study. Setting and participants: 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. Interventions: Novel interventions co‐created to support health, well‐being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care. Main outcome measures: Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA. Results: 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. Discussion and conclusions: 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.

KW - co‐creation

KW - multi‐criteria decision analysis

KW - patient‐centred policy

U2 - 10.1111/hex.12923

DO - 10.1111/hex.12923

M3 - Article

JO - Health Expectations

JF - Health Expectations

SN - 1369-6513

ER -