IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/zbw/entr19/207682.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Q-Method Evaluation of a European Health Data Analytic End User Framework

In: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019

Author

Listed:
  • Boilson, Andrew
  • Gauttier, Stéphanie
  • Connolly, Regina
  • Davis, Paul
  • Connolly, Justin
  • Weston, Dale
  • Staines, Anthony

Abstract

MIDAS (Meaningful Integration of Data Analytics and Services) project is developing a big data platform to facilitate the utilisation of a wide range of health and social care data to support better policy making. Our aim is to explore the use of Qmethodology as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the MIDAS project. Q-methodology is used to identify perspectives and viewpoints on a particular topic. In our case, we defined a concourse of statements relevant to project implementation and goals, by working from a logic model previously developed for the evaluation, and structured interviews with project participants. A 36-item concourse was delivered to participants, using the HTMLQ system. Analysis was done in the qmethod package. Participants had a range of professional backgrounds, and a range of roles in the project, including developers, end-users, policy staff, and health professionals. The q-sort is carried out at 14 months into the project, a few months before the intended first release of the software being developed. Sixteen people took part, 6 developers, 5 managers, 2 health professionals and 3 others. Three factors (distinct perspectives) were identified in the data. These were tentatively labelled ‘Technical optimism’, ‘End-user focus’ and ‘End-user optimism’. These loaded well onto individuals, and there were few consensus statements. Analysis of these factors loaded well onto individuals with a significant number of consensus statements identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Boilson, Andrew & Gauttier, Stéphanie & Connolly, Regina & Davis, Paul & Connolly, Justin & Weston, Dale & Staines, Anthony, 2019. "Q-Method Evaluation of a European Health Data Analytic End User Framework," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2019), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019, pages 219-231, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:entr19:207682
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/207682/1/26-ENT-2019-Boilson-et-al-219-231.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jarl Kampen & Peter Tamás, 2014. "Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3109-3126, November.
    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. Kovačić Matija & Mutavdžija Maja & Buntak Krešimir, 2022. "e-Health Application, Implementation and Challenges: A Literature Review," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, June.

    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. Susan Ramlo, 2024. "Q methodologist views on the future of Q: a study of a research community," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 4897-4914, October.
    2. Peter Nijkamp & Karima Kourtit & Henk Scholten & Esmeralda Willemsen, 2023. "Citizen Participation and Knowledge Support in Urban Public Energy Transition—A Quadruple Helix Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    5. Pinillos, Daniel & Poccard-Chapuis, René & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A. & Corbeels, Marc & Timler, Carl J. & Tittonell, Pablo & R. Ballester, Maria Victoria & Schulte, Rogier P., 2021. "Landholders' perceptions on legal reserves and agricultural intensification: Diversity and implications for forest conservation in the eastern Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Adrian Lundberg & Nicola Fraschini & Renata Aliani, 2023. "What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4509-4529, October.
    7. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    8. Chung-Chu Liu & Jason C. H. Chen & Che-Cheong Poon, 2019. "Perception Types Of Home Buyers By Q Methodology: A Comparative Study Of Hong Kong, Taiwan, And The Usa," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(01), pages 235-257, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q-Methodology; Realist Evaluation; Public Health Systems; Data Analytics; ICT; Innovation; Decision Support Systems;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:entr19:207682. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.entrenova.org/ .

    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.