Amsterdam 2015
Menu
AIDSImpact.com
Conference Details
Authors
International Committee
Plenary Speakers
Presenting Speakers
Programme
Sessions
Scientific Committee
Acknowledgements
| Abstract #2243 - Poster 2 | ||||
|
Session: 59.11: Poster 2 (Poster) on Tuesday in Chaired by Authors: Presenting Author: Ms Carolin Vierneisel - Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, Germany |
||||
| Additional Authors: | ||||
| Aim: The concept of quality is rapidly becoming a key consideration for HIV-prevention programs (Bartholomew et al., 2011). It describes the capacity to achieve legitimate and reasonable goals for positive health outcomes in a manner consistent with current professional knowledge and standards. Quality Action, the Joint Action on ‘Improving Quality in HIV Prevention’, aims to increase the effectiveness of the response to HIV and AIDS in Europe. It uses practical Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Improvement (QI) tools to improve the quality of HIV prevention. To further promote the approach, the project identifies barriers and enablers to successfully apply QA/QI tools. | ||||
| Method / Issue: Data was collected using an open-ended questionnaire developed by the team providing support for the practical applications within the project. The questionnaire captures eight aspects of the experience of using the tools. The 58 respondents have all participated in the project’s tool trainings and in a practical application. They represent NGOs and GOs and collate 22 different European countries. The focus of the analysis presented here is on respondents’ descriptions of lessons learnt, i.e. barriers and enabling factors during the application of the tool. Data was analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis (Mayring, 2010), i.e. thematically coded and clustered. | ||||
| Results / Comments: Six main success factors were identified: 1. Tool Fit to project approach and scope, target group characteristics and to user resources was described as key for a successful application – achieved, also by users adapting the tool. 2. Thorough Planning and Preparation of the application process deemed essential, a lack thereof due to time restraints was a main barrier. 3. Facilitation of the application process poses challenges, e.g. keeping a discussion both focused and creative, and is seen as a main success factor. 4. Participation of a diverse group of relevant stakeholders increased the perceived benefit of the application but also resulted in an additional organisational burden. 5. Support from co-workers, the management level and decision makers can make the application process easier – or, if lacking, pose a serious challenge to it. 6. Technical Factors, such as the availability of translations or supportive online tools can make a difference. | ||||
| Discussion: The prominence of Tool Fit as a key factor in the case studies analysed is remarkable – but so is the proactive way users adapted tools and processes to their needs. The role of time and resources, organisational and management support as well as facilitation points to the importance of the working environment in enabling self-reflection and stakeholder participation. Overall, the analysis shows that it is the multitude of these factors and their interplay that determine the success of applying a QA/QI tool. QA/QI tool users would also benefit from tools in modular form and clear guidance for local adaptation as well as additional means of technical support to enhance their QA/QI activities. Additional findings based on ongoing analysis to be conducted as additional case studies become available – including unsuccessful attempts – will also be included in this paper. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||