Search results
1 – 5 of 5Lyndsay M.C. Hayhurst, Holly Thorpe and Megan Chawansky
Caroline Cupit, Janet Rankin and Natalie Armstrong
The main purpose of this paper is to document the first author's experience of using institutional ethnography (IE) to “take sides” in healthcare research. The authors illustrate…
Abstract
Purpose
The main purpose of this paper is to document the first author's experience of using institutional ethnography (IE) to “take sides” in healthcare research. The authors illustrate the points with data and key findings from a study of cardiovascular disease prevention.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors use Dorothy E Smith's IE approach, and particularly the theoretical tool of “standpoint”.
Findings
Starting with the development of the study, the authors trouble the researcher's positionality, highlighting tensions between institutional knowledge of “prevention” and other locations where knowledge about patients' health needs materialises. The authors outline how IE's theoretically and methodologically integrated toolkit became a framework for “taking sides” with patients. They describe how the researcher used IE to take a standpoint and map institutional relations from that standpoint. They argue that IE enabled an innovative analysis but also reflect on the challenges of conducting an IE – the conceptual unpicking and (re)thinking, and demarcating boundaries of investigation within an expansive dataset.
Originality/value
This paper illustrates IE's relevance for organisational ethnographers wishing to find a theoretically robust approach to taking sides, and suggests ways in which the IE approach might contribute to improving services, particularly healthcare. It provides an illustration of how taking a patient standpoint was accomplished in practice, and reflects on the challenges involved.
Details
Keywords
Rita Ouseph, Calvin Croy, Crystal Natvig, Teresa Simoneau and Mark L. Laudenslager
Caregivers are known to experience increased morbidity when compared to noncaregivers. Does an intervention targeting caregiver distress affect their health care utilization? One…
Abstract
Caregivers are known to experience increased morbidity when compared to noncaregivers. Does an intervention targeting caregiver distress affect their health care utilization? One hundred forty-eight caregivers of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients were randomized to treatment as usual (TAU) or a psychoeducation, paced respiration, and relaxation (PEPRR) intervention. Assessments of caregivers' service utilization were collected at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months post-transplant. During the first 30 days after patient transplant, caregiver medical and mental health professional service use decreased while support group attendance peaked. Mixed model regressions showed a significant decrease in mental health service use by the PEPRR group (P=0.001). At six months caregivers in TAU had predicted marginal probabilities of mental health services utilization over 10 times as high as caregivers in PEPRR (18.1% vs 1.5%). Groups failed to differ in medical service (P=0.861) or support group (P=0.067) use. We can conclude that participation in PEPRR compared to TAU was associated with reduced mental health service utilization. Caregiver psychosocial support services are critical to improve caregiver outcomes.
Details
Keywords
Vinicius Farias Ribeiro, Adriana Victoria Garibaldi de Hilal and Marcos Gonçalves Avila
The purpose of this paper is to identify under what circumstances advisor gender and advice justification influence advice taking by managers.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify under what circumstances advisor gender and advice justification influence advice taking by managers.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors designed a quasirational managerial decision experiment with both analytic and intuitive cues. The design was a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial, in which gender (male/female) and advice justification (intuitive/analytic) were crossed. The experiment involved two independent samples, taken from Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and Brazilian professionals.
Findings
Results suggest that, in general, analytic justification is more valued than intuitive justification. The findings also infer that depending on the advisees’ sample and providing that advice justification is analytic, quasirational scenarios seem to favor male advisors (MTurk sample) or both male and female advisors with “male values” (professional sample), as analysis is traditionally considered a “male value.”
Practical implications
Analytic justification will likely lead to more advice utilization in quasirational managerial situations, as it may act as a safeguard for the accuracy of the offered advice.
Social implications
The results might signal an ongoing, but slow, process leading to the mitigation of gender stereotypes, considering that the male gender stereotype was active in the MTurk sample, but not in the professional one.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the advice-taking research field by showing the interplay between advisor gender and advice justification in a quasirational managerial decision setting with both analytic and intuitive cues. In advice-taking literature, observations are usually collected from students. However, as this study focused on managerial decisions, the authors collected independent samples from MTurk workers and Brazilian professionals.
Details