Process evaluation of a diversity training program: The value of a mixed method strategy

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 54-65

  Celik, Halime ^a,b   Abma, Tineke A ^c   Klinge, Ineke ^a   Widdershoven, Guy A M ^c  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Simons and Partners Advocaten   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Diversity; Gender; Implementation; Mixed methods; Process evaluation; Training

Indexed keywords

GENDER; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH WORKER; HOSPITAL SECTOR; MENTAL HEALTH; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; TRAINING;

ARTICLE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; EDUCATION; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; NETHERLANDS; NURSING HOME; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CULTURAL DIVERSITY; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; NETHERLANDS; NURSING HOMES; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 81155158535     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abma T.A. The Social Relations of Evaluation. The Sage Handbook of Evaluation 2006, 184-199. Sage Publications, London. I.F. Shaw, J.C. Greene, M.M. Mark (Eds.).
2. Abma T.A., Stake R.E. Stake's responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. Responsive Evaluation 2001, 92:7-22.
3. Bekker M.H.J. Investigating gender within health research is more than sex disaggregation of data: A multi-facet gender & health model. Psychology Health and Medicine 2003, 2:231-243.
4. Bird C.E., Rieker P.P. Gender matters: An integrated model for understanding men's and women's health. Social Science and Medicine 1999, 48(6):745-755.
5. Burlew A.K. Research with ethnic minorities: Conceptual, methodological, analysis issues. Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology 2003, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. G. Bernal, J.E. Trimble, A.K. Burlew, F.T.L. Leong (Eds.).
6. Celik H., Abma T.A., Widdershoven G.A., van Wijmen F.C.B., Klinge I. Implementation of diversity in healthcare practices: Barriers and opportunities. Patient Education & Counseling 2008, 71:65-71.
7. Celik, H., & van Oosten, N. (2004). Gender, diversity and quality assurance in healthcare practices. Blueprint Training Maastricht, Maastricht University.
8. Celik, H., & van Oosten, N. (2005a). Mainstreaming diversity in healthcare practices. The training manual. Maastricht: Maastricht University.
9. Celik, H., & van Oosten, N. (2005b). Mainstreaming diversity in healthcare practices. Participants' manual and reader. Maastricht: Maastricht University.
10. Celik H., Klinge I. Mainstreaming gender en diversiteit in de gezondheidszorg [Mainstreaming gender and diversity in health care]. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies 2005, 2:12-22.
11. Celik H., Lagro-Janssen T., Klinge I., van der Weijden T., Widdershoven G. Maintaining gender sensitivity in the family practice: Facilitators and barriers. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2009, 15(6):1220-1225.
12. Council of Europe. (1998). Gender mainstreaming. Conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practices. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
13. Crenshaw K.W. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. The public nature of private violence 1994, 93-118. Routledge, New York. F.N. Albertson, R. Mykitiuk (Eds.).
14. Essed P. Gendered preferences in racialized spaces: Cloning the physician. Racialization. Studies in theory and practice 2005, 227-245. Oxford University Press, Oxford. K. Murji, J. Solomos (Eds.).
15. Greene J.C. Mixed methods in social inquiry 2007, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
16. Greene J.C. Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2008, 2(1):7-22.
17. Greene J., Benjamin L., Goodyear L. The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation 2001, 7(1):25-44.
18. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1989, 11(3):255-274.
19. Greene J.C., Kreider H., Mayer E. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry. Research methods in the social sciences 2005, 274-281. Sage, London. B. Somekh, C. Lewin (Eds.).
20. Grol R., Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patients' care. The Lancet 2003, 632:1225-1230.
21. Grol R., Wensing M., Eccles M. Improving patients' care: The implementation of change in clinical practice 2005, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Edinburgh.
22. Guba E., Lincoln Y. Fourth generation evaluation 1989, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
23. Health Canada. (2000). Types of gender bias problems. Health Canada's gender-based analysis policy. Ottawa: Health Canada.
24. Hoffman E. Women's health and complexity science. Academic Medicine 2000, 75(11):1102-1106.
25. Hsieh H.F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 2005, 15(9):1277-1288.
26. Kotter J.P., Cohen D.S. The heart of change. Real life stories of how people change their organizations 2002, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard.
27. Langley G.L., Nolan K.M., Nolan T.W., Norman C.L., Provost L.P. The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance 1996, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
28. Leininger M. Transcultural nursing: Concepts, theories, research and practices 1995, McGraw-Hill, New York.
29. Cultural care diversity & universality: A theory of nursing 2001, National League for Nursing Press. M. Leininger (Ed.).
30. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 92-109). New York: Sage.
31. Linnan L., Steckler A. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research: An overview. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research 2002, 1-23. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. L. Linnan, A. Steckler (Eds.).
32. Mabry L. Alexandre Dumas Elementry School, Chicago, Illinois. Custom & Cherishing: the Arts in Elementary Schools 1991, 137-176. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. R. Stake, L. Bresler, L. Mabry (Eds.).
33. Mahoney J., Engebretson J. The interface of anthropology and nursing guiding culturally competent care in psychiatric nursing. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 2000, 14(4):183-190.
34. Mead N., Bower P. Patient centeredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science and Medicine 2000, 51:1087-1110.
35. Mertens D.M. Transformative research and evaluation 2009, Guilford, New York, London.
36. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook 1994, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
37. Moser I. Sociotechnical practices and difference: On the interferences between disability, gender, and class. Science Technology Human Values 2006, 31:537-564.
38. Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1977). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. In D. Hamilton et al. (Eds.), Beyond the numbers game. London: Macmillan.
39. Pathman D.E., Konrad T.R., Freed G.L., Freeman V.A., Koch G.G. The awareness-to adherence model of the steps to clinical guideline compliance: The case of pediatric vaccine recommendations. Medical Care 1996, 34:873-889.
40. Pinn V.W. Sex and gender factors in medical studies. Implications for health and clinical practice. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003, 289(4):397-400.
41. Rees T. Mainstreaming gender equality in science in the European Union. Gender and Education 2001, 13(3):243-260.
42. Risberg G., Hamberg K., Johansson E.E. Gender awareness among physicians-The effect of specialty and gender. A study of teachers at a Swedish medical school. BMC Medical Education 2003, 3:8.
43. Rogers E.M. Diffusion of innovations 2003, Free Press, New York. 5th edn.
44. Stake R.E. To evaluate an arts program. Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach 1975, 13-31. Merrill, Columbus, OH. R.E. Stake (Ed.).
45. Street R.L. Gender differences in health care provider-patient communication: Are they due to style, stereotypes, or accommodation?. Patient Education and Counseling 2002, 48:201-206.
46. Van Mens-Verhulst J. Diversiteit in theorie en praktijk: Een bericht uit de feministische hulpverlening. [Diversity in theory and practice: A message from the feminist care]. Tijdschrift voor Humanistiek 2001, 2(2):7-17.
47. Verdonk P., Benschop Y.W.M., De Haes J.C.J.M., Lagro-Janssen A.L.M. Making a gender difference: Case studies of gender mainstreaming in medical education. Medical Teacher 2008, 30:e194-e201.
48. Verdonk P., Mans L.J.L., Lagro-Janssen A.L.M. How is gender integrated in the curricula of Dutch medical schools? A quick-scan on gender issues as an instrument for change. Gender and Education 2006, 18(4):399-412.
49. Wekker G. Van monocultuur naar caleidoscoop. Humanistiek 2001, 6:26-33.
50. Yano E. The role of organizational research in implementing evidence-based practice: QUERI Series. Implementation Science 2008, 3(1):29.