IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p15916-d987755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Professionals’ Experience with the First Implementation of the Organizational Health Literacy Self-Assessment Tool for Primary Care (OHL Self-AsseT)—A Qualitative Reflexive Thematic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Natascha Stuermer

    (Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Saskia Maria De Gani

    (Center for Health Literacy, Careum Foundation, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland
    Careum School of Health, Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Anna-Sophia Beese

    (Center for Health Literacy, Careum Foundation, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Jennifer Giovanoli Evack

    (Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Rebecca Jaks

    (Center for Health Literacy, Careum Foundation, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Dunja Nicca

    (Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland)

Abstract

Organizational health literacy (OHL) is crucial for public health, in turn health care organizations play vital roles in improving populations’ health literacy. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore how the organizational health literacy self-assessment tool (OHL Self-AsseT) was implemented, used, and understood by primary care teams from a network of general practices and a Home Care Service Organization in Zurich, Switzerland. Reflexive thematic analysis with a constructivist orientation was used to analyze data from 19 interviews pre- and post-OHL Self-AsseT use. Normalization Process Theory supported structuring of inductively developed themes. Findings show that the participants experienced working with the OHL Self-AsseT meaningful, as it helped with “Addressing OHL construction sites” so that they could “build momentum for change”. The experience of “Succeeding together in construction” led to a “feeling of team-efficacy during change”. Practical use of the tool and/or discussions about OHL led to a growing conceptual understanding, which was described as “Using a construction plan–making sense of ongoing OHL activities”. To conclude, the OHL Self-AsseT encouraged teams to initiate change, led to greater team-efficacy and supported the construction of OHL. Improved implementation strategies will support this intervention’s scale-up as a base for effectiveness testing.

Suggested Citation

  • Natascha Stuermer & Saskia Maria De Gani & Anna-Sophia Beese & Jennifer Giovanoli Evack & Rebecca Jaks & Dunja Nicca, 2022. "Health Professionals’ Experience with the First Implementation of the Organizational Health Literacy Self-Assessment Tool for Primary Care (OHL Self-AsseT)—A Qualitative Reflexive Thematic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15916-:d:987755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15916/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15916/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna-Sophia Beese & Dunja Nicca & Rebecca Jaks & Natascha Stuermer & Saskia Maria De Gani, 2022. "How Do Primary Care Organizations Rate Their Level of Organizational Health Literacy? Results of a Swiss Pilot-Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Marise S. Kaper & Jane Sixsmith & Sijmen A. Reijneveld & Andrea F. de Winter, 2021. "Outcomes and Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Organizational Health Literacy Interventions: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Saskia Maria De Gani & Daniela Nowak-Flück & Dunja Nicca & Dominique Vogt, 2020. "Self-Assessment Tool to Promote Organizational Health Literacy in Primary Care Settings in Switzerland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Elham Charoghchian Khorasani & Seyedeh Belin Tavakoly Sany & Hadi Tehrani & Hassan Doosti & Nooshin Peyman, 2020. "Review of Organizational Health Literacy Practice at Health Care Centers: Outcomes, Barriers and Facilitators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna-Sophia Beese & Dunja Nicca & Rebecca Jaks & Natascha Stuermer & Saskia Maria De Gani, 2022. "How Do Primary Care Organizations Rate Their Level of Organizational Health Literacy? Results of a Swiss Pilot-Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Joy Agner & Katharine Elizabeth Bau & Dirk Bruland, 2024. "An Introduction to Health Literacy and Social Contexts with Recommendations for Health Professionals and Researchers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(2), pages 1-14, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    2. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    3. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    4. Elena Antonacopoulou, 2018. "Energising critique in action and in learning: The GNOSIS 4R Framework," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 102-125, May.
    5. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    6. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.
    7. Per Engelseth & Richard Glavee-Geo & Artur Janusz & Enoch Niboi, 2020. "The Emergent Nature of Networked Sustainable Procurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    9. Jeffery S. McMullen & Dimo Dimov, 2013. "Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1481-1512, December.
    10. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    11. Minkkinen, Matti, 2019. "The anatomy of plausible futures in policy processes: Comparing the cases of data protection and comprehensive security," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 172-180.
    12. Stea, Diego & Foss, Nicolai J. & Christensen, Peter Holdt, 2015. "Physical separation in the workplace: Separation cues, separation awareness, and employee motivation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 462-471.
    13. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    14. Tiina J. Peltola & Hanna Tiirinki, 2020. "More Than Numbers: Discourses of Health Care Quality in Finland," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    15. Rydén, Pernille & Ringberg, Torsten & Wilke, Ricky, 2015. "How Managers' Shared Mental Models of Business–Customer Interactions Create Different Sensemaking of Social Media," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    17. Joseph McManus, 2021. "Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 153-168, February.
    18. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    19. Tongyu Meng & Jamie Newth & Christine Woods, 2022. "Ethical Sensemaking in Impact Investing: Reasons and Motives in the Chinese Renewable Energy Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1091-1117, September.
    20. Sandra Waddock, 2019. "Shaping the Shift: Shamanic Leadership, Memes, and Transformation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 931-939, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15916-:d:987755. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.