Process evaluation of a diversity training program: The value of a mixed method strategy
Patients’ health and health needs are influenced by categories of difference like sex, gender, ethnic origin and socioeconomic status (SES). To enhance awareness of this diversity among patients and to provide holistic care for them, health professionals should first be aware of the relation between dimensions of diversity and patients’ health and health demands. This paper presents a formative process evaluation of a diversity sensitivity training programme for healthcare professionals. The training was implemented in three healthcare settings (mental healthcare, nursing home and hospital care). Mixed methods were used to monitor the implementation of the training and its effects after three years. Findings demonstrate that the training stimulated participants’ awareness, knowledge and critical attitudes towards diversity. Their motivation and willingness to take action regarding diversity was also enhanced. Yet these developments were less apparent among nursing home participants who felt less satisfied and did not develop a critical perspective on this issue. Qualitative data were helpful to explain differences between the settings. By means of the combination of quantitative and qualitative data, we can conclude that individual learning was not enough to guarantee a sensitive approach to diversity at the organizational level.
Volume (Year): 35 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bird, Chloe E. & Rieker, Patricia P., 1999. "Gender matters: an integrated model for understanding men's and women's health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 745-755, March.
- Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter, 2000. "Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 1087-1110, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:35:y:2012:i:1:p:54-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.