Evaluation of iLead, a generic implementation leadership intervention: mixed-method preintervention–postintervention design

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2020-01, Vol.10 (1), p.e033227
Hauptverfasser: Richter, Anne, Lornudd, Caroline, von Thiele Schwarz, Ulrica, Lundmark, Robert, Mosson, Rebecca, Eskner Skoger, Ulrika, Hirvikoski, Tatja, Hasson, Henna
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the iLead intervention and to investigate whether or not transfer of training can be supported by contextualising the intervention (recruiting all managers from one branch of the organisation while focusing on one implementation case, as well as training senior management).DesignA pre-evaluation–postevaluation design was applied using mixed methods with process and effect surveys and interviews to measure the effects on three levels.SettingHealthcare managers from Stockholm’s regional healthcare organisation were invited to the training.Participants52 managers participated in the iLead intervention. Group 1 consisted of 21 managers from different organisations and with different implementation cases. Group 2, representing the contextualised group, consisted of 31 managers from the same organisation, working on the same implementation case, where senior management also received training.InterventioniLead is an intervention where healthcare managers are trained in implementation leadership based on the full-range leadership model.Primary outcome measuresReactions, knowledge and implementation leadership are measured.ResultsQuantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that iLead was perceived to be of high quality and capable of increasing participants’ knowledge. Mixed effects were found regarding changes in behaviours. The contextualisation did not have a boosting effect on behaviour change. Hence, group 2 did not increase its active implementation leadership in comparison with group 1.ConclusionsiLead introduces a new approach to how implementation leadership can be trained when knowledge of effective leadership for implementations is combined with findings on the importance of environmental factors for the transfer of training. Even though managers reported general positive effects, transfer was not facilitated through the contextualisation of the intervention. There is a need to further develop approaches to help participants subsequently apply the learnt skills in their work environment.
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033227