ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2022
Local problem solving in the Portuguese health examination survey: a mixed method study.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation rates in health surveys, recognized as an important quality dimension, have been declining over the years, which may affect representativeness and confidence in results. The Portuguese national health examination survey INSEF (2015) achieved a participation rate of 43.9%, which is in line with participation rates from other similar health examination surveys. The objective of this article is to describe how local teams of survey personnel conducted the survey, describing strategies used to solve practical survey problems and to try to increase the participation rate.
methodsAfter a literature search, informal interviews were conducted with 14 public health officials from local health examination teams, regional and central authorities. Forty-one of the local staff members (survey personnel) also filled in a short questionnaire anonymously. The interviews and self-administered questionnaires were analysed using mixed methods, informed by thematic analysis.
resultsThe local teams believed that the detailed manual, described as a "cookbook for making a health examination survey", made it possible to maintain high scientific standards while allowing for improvising solutions to problems in the local context. The quality of the manual, supported by a series of training workshops with the central research and support team, gave the teams the confidence and knowledge to implement local solutions. Motivation and cohesion within the local teams were among the goals of the training process. Local teams felt empowered by being given large responsibilities and worked hard to incite people to attend the examination through a close and persuasive approach. Local teams praised their INSA contacts for being available for assistance throughout the survey, and said they were inspired to try harder to reach participants to please their contacts for interpersonal reasons.
conclusionsThe theory of organizational improvisation or bricolage, which means using limited resources to solve problems, was useful to discuss and understand what took place during INSEF. A detailed manual covering standard procedures, continuous monitoring of the data collection and face-to-face workshops, including role-play, were vital to assure high scientific standards and high participation rates in this health examination survey. Close contacts between the central team and local focal points in all regions and all survey sites were key to accommodating unexpected challenges and innovative solutions.
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.