ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019
Understanding practitioner perspectives of youth healthcare using thematic and lexical analyses.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cues Disseminated by Professional Associations That Represent 5 Health Care Professions Across 5 Nations: Lexical Analysis of Tweets.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Hearing parents' voices: A priority-setting workshop to inform a suite of psychological resources for parents of children with rare genetic epilepsies.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Understanding practitioner perspectives of youth healthcare using thematic and lexical analyses.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouth health issues represent a "wicked problem" - they are complex and multifaceted. Furthermore, they are likely to require novel approaches to understand their complexity and develop novel solutions.
objectiveGiven the importance of youth healthcare, and the need for novel approaches, the aim of this article was to demonstrate the innovative use of two research methods - thematic and lexical analyses - to better understand practitioner perspectives of youth healthcare. It clarifies the factors that shape practitioner ability to support young people and opportunities to improve practice. DESIGN AND
settingFocus groups and interviews were conducted with 37 youth health practitioners. They represented government and non-government services; hospital and community services; and metropolitan and regional services.
resultsThematic analysis highlighted the complexity of participants' work and the judgements made as they negotiated relationships with young people and ancillary services. Lexical analysis revealed two hitherto neglected dimensions of the complexity of youth healthcare - uncertainty and corporeality. DISCUSSION: In addition to affirming the complexities of youth healthcare, this study revealed how practitioners (can) negotiate these complexities. These findings were only possible because of the innovative use of the two research methods.
conclusionsThis study has important theoretical, methodological and practical implications. Theoretically, it is the first to view the complexities of youth healthcare through the wicked problem lens. Methodologically, it highlights the complementary value of thematic and lexical analyses. Practically, it reinforces the importance of policy support and professional development to enable practitioners to grasp the complexities of their work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.