Search results

The aim of this paper is to define pracademia and conceptualise it in relation to educational contexts. This paper contributes to and stimulates a continuing and evolving conversation around pracademia and its relevance, role and possibilities.

This paper is a conceptual exploration. It draws upon existing and emerging pieces of literature, the use of metaphor as a meaning-making tool, and the positionalities of the authors, to develop the concept of pracademia.

The authors posit that pracademics who simultaneously straddle the worlds of practice, policy, and academia embody new possibilities as boundary spanners in the field of education for knowledge mobilization, networks, community membership, and responding to systemic challenges. However, being a pracademic requires the constant reconciling of the demands of multi-membership and ultimately, pracademics must establish sufficient legitimacy to be respected in two or more currently distinct worlds.

This paper has implications for knowledge mobilization, networks, boundary spanners, leadership, professional learning, and connecting practice, policy, and research. While the authors are in the field of education, this exploration of pracademia is relevant not only to the field of education but also to other fields in which there is a clear need to connect practice/policy with scholarship.

This paper provides a new definition of pracademia and argues that pracademia identifies an important yet relatively unknown space with many possibilities in the field of education.

To ensure that more people will benefit from integrated care initiatives, scaling-up of successful initiatives is the way forward. However, new challenges present themselves as knowledge on how to achieve successful large-scale implementation is scarce. The EU-funded project SCIROCCO uses a step-based scaling-up strategy to explore what to scale-up, and how to scale-up integrated care initiatives by matching the complementary strengths and weaknesses of five European regions involved in integrated care. The purpose of this paper is to describe a multi-method evaluation protocol designed to understand what factors influence the implementation of the SCIROCCO strategy to support the scaling-up of integrated care.

The first part of the protocol focuses on the assessment of the implementation fidelity of the SCIROCCO step-based strategy. The objective is to gain insight in whether the step-based strategy is implemented as it was designed to explore what works and does not work when implementing the scaling-up strategy. The second part concerns a realist evaluation to examine what it is about the SCIROCCO’s strategy that works for whom, why, how and in which circumstances when scaling-up integrated care.

The intended study will provide valuable information on the implementation of the scaling-up strategy which will help to explain for what specific reasons the implementation succeeds and will facilitate further improvement of project outcomes.

The expected insights could be useful to guide the development, implementation and evaluation of future scaling-up strategies to advance the change towards more sustainable health and care systems.

The purpose of this study is to describe participation in decision-making among service users with severe mental illness.

Service users want to participate in decision-making and in the planning of their care. There are widely known methods, such as shared decision-making, that could be used to facilitate service user participation. Three focus group interviews were conducted with the participation of 14 persons with mental illness and/or substance abuse who were service users at two Swedish Homes for Care and Residence (HVB). Data were analyzed by qualitative content analysis.

Two themes emerged: service users’ involvement in decisions is hampered by the professionals’ approach and adequate information and experience of participation means greater empowerment.

Although it is known that service users would like to have more influence, and that methods like shared decision-making are recommended to empower service users and improve the decision process, research on these matters is limited.

This study reveals that there is a need of more systematic decisional support, such as shared decision-making, so that service users can be seen as important persons not only in guidelines and policy documents but also in clinical practice.

The findings indicate that service users do not participate in decisions systematically, although policies, guidelines and laws providing that service users should be offered an active part in decision-making with regard to their care and treatment.

Although it is known that service users would like to have more influence, and that methods like shared decision-making are recommended to empower service users and improve their decision process, research on these matters is limited. The findings indicate that service users do not participate in decisions systematically, even though policies, guidelines and laws are in place stipulating that service users should be offered an active part in decision-making with regard to their own care and treatment. The results of this project bring improvement opportunities to light.