Aligning Forces for Quality Evaluation Publications
Our Recent Work
Decision-Making Fairness and Consensus Building in Multi-Sector Community Health Alliances: A Mixed Methods Analysis
Larry R. Hearld, Jeffrey A. Alexander, Laura Bodenschatz, Christopher J. Louis, Jennifer O'Hora
To be published in Nonprofit Management & Leadership (online now)
At a time when AF4Q alliances are turning their attention to alliance sustainability, the findings presented in this study provide important insights into the dynamics of building and sustaining alliance capacity. In this study, we examined whether member perceptions of fairness in AF4Q alliances' decision-making processes were associated with the perceived level of consensus among members regarding the alliance vision and strategies. We found that greater decision-making transparency and inclusiveness were associated with more consensus on alliance’ vision and strategy. Furthermore, the consensus-building process is facilitated by using formal decision-making frameworks and engaging alliance members in decision-making processes early. These findings reinforce the importance of fairness in building and sustaining capacity for improving community health.
Hospital Commitment to Community Orientation and Its Association with Quality of Care and Patient Experience
Raymond Kang M.A. and Romana Hasnain-Wynia, PhD.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 58:4 July/August 2013
Health care research has increasingly recognized the important role hospitals play within their community through their community orientation activities and involvement in multi-stakeholder alliances, like AF4Q. In this study, we explore the association between hospital community orientation activities and the quality of care and patient experience within hospitals. Ultimately this study provides evidence for the potential benefits of hospital community involvement and participation in multi-stakeholder collaboratives and may help guide decision makers when presented with these opportunities.
Multistakeholder Perspectives on Composite Measures of Ambulatory Care Quality: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Grant R. Martsolf, Dennis P. Scanlon and Jon B. Christianson
Medical Care Research and Review, published online April 26, 2013
Many proposed interventions for improving the quality of ambulatory care in the United States, including public reporting, consumer engagement activities and payment reforms, require stakeholders to view, digest and act on reports of ambulatory care quality. To help different stakeholders better use these reports, policymakers and practitioners have focused substantial attention on creating composite measures, which summarize information from across multiple quality indicators. This study is the first to investigate the creation of these composite measures within a community-based multistakeholder collaborative organization. Specifically, this study examines the views of “on-the-ground” practitioners who are largely responsible for the actual decisions about how community-level reports are developed and used in real-world settings. This article offers a look into the issues that are important to this group. Better understanding these perspectives can help research experts create composite measures that are relevant and accepted in multistakeholder settings.
AF4Q Evaluation Publications (2007-2013)
To date, the AF4Q Evaluation team has published over 30 articles expanding the knowledge base around health care reform at the local level and providing formative evaluation findings regarding the AF4Q program design, implementation, and effectiveness of early program efforts.
The AF4Q Evaluation team produces summaries on important aspects of the research and the experiences of AF4Q alliances including the implementation of patient-centered medical homes, the challenges of consumer engagement, and more.