Search results for: expert team scheduling

Authors: Oluwaseun Adeleke, Samuel O. Ikani, Simeon Christian Chukwu, Fidelis Edet, Anthony Nwala, Mopelola Raji, Simeon Christian Chukwu

Abstract:

Background: Health service providers are offered in-service training periodically to strengthen their ability to deliver services that are ethical, quality, timely and safe. Not all capacity-building courses have successfully resulted in intended service delivery outcomes because of poor training content, design, approach, and ambiance. The Delivering Innovations in Selfcare (DISC) project developed a Moment of Truth innovation, which is a proven training model focused on improving consumer/provider interaction that leads to an increase in the voluntary uptake of subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-SC) self-injection among women who opt for injectable contraception. Methodology: Six months after training on a moment of truth (MoT) training manual, the project conducted two intensive rounds of qualitative data collection and triangulation that included provider, client, and community mobilizer interviews, facility observations, and routine program data collection. Respondents were sampled according to a convenience sampling approach, and data collected was analyzed using a codebook and Atlas-TI. Providers and clients were interviewed to understand their experience, perspective, attitude, and awareness about the DMPA-SC self-inject. Data were collected from 12 health facilities in three states – eight directly trained and four cascades trained. The research team members came together for a participatory analysis workshop to explore and interpret emergent themes. Findings: Quality-of-service delivery and performance outcomes were observed to be significantly better in facilities whose providers were trained directly trained by the DISC project than in sites that received indirect training through master trainers. Facilities that were directly trained recorded SI proportions that were twice more than in cascade-trained sites. Direct training comprised of full-day and standalone didactic and interactive sessions constructed to evoke commitment, passion and conviction as well as eliminate provider bias and misconceptions in providers by utilizing human interest stories and values clarification exercises. Sessions also created compelling arguments using evidence and national guidelines. The training also prioritized demonstration sessions, utilized job aids, particularly videos, strengthened empathetic counseling – allaying client fears and concerns about SI, trained on positioning self-inject first and side effects management. Role plays and practicum was particularly useful to enable providers to retain and internalize new knowledge. These sessions provided experiential learning and the opportunity to apply one's expertise in a supervised environment where supportive feedback is provided in real-time. Cascade Training was often a shorter and abridged form of MoT training that leveraged existing training already planned by master trainers. This training was held over a four-hour period and was less emotive, focusing more on foundational DMPA-SC knowledge such as a reorientation to DMPA-SC, comparison of DMPA-SC variants, counseling framework and skills, data reporting and commodity tracking/requisition – no facility practicums. Training on self-injection was not as robust, presumably because they were not directed at methods in the contraceptive mix that align with state/organizational sponsored objectives – in this instance, fostering LARC services. Conclusion: To achieve better performance outcomes, consideration should be given to providing training that prioritizes practice-based and emotive content. Furthermore, a firm understanding and conviction about the value training offers improve motivation and commitment to accomplish and surpass service-related performance outcomes.

Keywords: training, performance outcomes, innovation, family planning, contraception, DMPA-SC, self-care, self-injection.

Procedia PDF Downloads 84

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 588