Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of group concept mapping (GCM) as a tool for developing a conceptual model of an episode of acute, unscheduled care from illness or injury to outcomes such as recovery, death and chronic illness.

After generating a literature review drafting an initial conceptual model, GCM software (CS Global MAX^TM) is used to organize and identify strengths and directionality between concepts generated through feedback about the model from several stakeholder groups: acute care and non-acute care providers, patients, payers and policymakers. Through online and in-person population-specific focus groups, the GCM approach seeks feedback, assigned relationships and articulated priorities from participants to produce an output map that described overarching concepts and relationships within and across subsamples.

A clustered concept map made up of relational data points that produced a taxonomy of feedback was used to update the model for use in soliciting additional feedback from two technical expert panels (TEPs), and finally, a public comment exercise was performed. The results were a stakeholder-informed improved model for an acute care episode, identified factors that influence process and outcomes, and policy recommendations, which were delivered to the Department of Health and Human Services’s (DHHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.

This study provides an example of the value of cross-population multi-stakeholder input to increase voice in shared problem health stakeholder groups.

This paper provides GCM results and a visual analysis of the relational characteristics both within and across sub-populations involved in the study. It also provides an assessment of observational key factors supporting how different stakeholder voices can be integrated to inform model development and policy recommendations.

This study aims to investigate individual motivations for participating in collaborative health knowledge producing teams (KPTs), as well as satisfaction gained by participation in science teams. The authors focus on understanding motivators across team types, levels of engagement and alignment within and across teams and need satisfaction in a total of six science teams. Areas of strong congruence and divergence of motivating factors can be aligned across (i) learning and professional growth satisfaction, (ii) respect, collegiality and enjoyment satisfaction and (iii) accomplishment and discovery satisfaction. Levels of satisfaction are hierarchically mapped showing their relation to more external and communal foci to motivations that seek satisfaction of individual needs.

This mixed method comparative study uses data from the motivation assessment for team readiness integration and collaboration (MATRICx) tool and themes generated from semi-structured interviews. This methodology provided a means to compare a hierarchy of motivations against levels of collaborative engagement, as well as individual needs satisfaction and ultimately the identification of higher and lower-level motivations related to self and external foci.

The findings indicate that there are both similarities and differences in motivations in different health science teams when one compares biomedical, education and policy teams. A comparison of MATRICx data from across team types and teams suggests areas of strong congruence as well as areas of divergence in motivation factors.

The paper and its findings use a novel tool along with qualitative research techniques to identify motivation in KPTs and uses these data to understand what type of needs satisfaction are important across three areas of health science teaming. Our research informs team leaders, facilitators and consultants about the important motivations team members have entering teams and has the potential to provide a blueprint to ensure peak performance as individual team members seek to address their ever-growing professional needs.

This conceptual article aims to explore the current state of knowledge management systems, to describe the potential role of synthetic worlds for knowledge integration, and to suggest a future research agenda.

Using the constraints of current knowledge management systems outlined in Alavi and Tiwana as a guiding structure, this article explores knowledge integration through a synthetic world and outlines several propositions intended to frame existing knowledge and guide the development of future inquiry.

Current knowledge management systems neither exploit the capabilities of high performance computing, nor adequately address organizational challenges presented by increasingly knowledge‐laden, dispersed, global organizations. The limitations of current systems: constraints on transactive memory, insufficient mutual understanding, limited retention of contextual knowledge, and inflexibility of organizational ties; can be effectively addressed through the synthetic world environment.

Debate regarding the role of Web 2.0 in twenty‐first century knowledge management continues. In order to move this debate forward, the Web 2.0 phenomenon must be unbundled and the role a specific virtual environment may play considered. To that end, this article explores the potential role of synthetic worlds for organizational knowledge management and integration. It heightens awareness and generates dialogue that fosters an appreciation of the emerging synthetic world environment.