Unlocking the Power of Participatory Design in Implementation Strategies

In the realm of speech-language pathology and online therapy services like those provided by TinyEYE, implementing evidence-based practices is essential for achieving optimal outcomes. A recent study titled "Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing" offers valuable insights into how different participatory design methods can be leveraged to enhance implementation strategies.

The Study: Contextual Inquiry vs. Rapid Crowd Sourcing

The study conducted by Becker-Haimes et al. (2022) compared two participatory design methods: traditional contextual inquiry and rapid crowd sourcing through an innovation tournament. The goal was to identify and compare implementation strategies that could increase the use of evidence-based data collection practices among aides working with children with autism.

• Traditional Contextual Inquiry: This method involved field observations and qualitative interviews, generating 26 distinct implementation strategies. It provided more detailed and specific insights but required significant time investment from both researchers and participants.
• Rapid Crowd Sourcing: The innovation tournament yielded 14 strategies, focusing on broader solutions with less specificity. This method was faster but more costly due to the technological platform used.

Key Findings

The study found substantial overlap in the content derived from both methods, though each had unique outputs:

• Specificity vs. Speed: Contextual inquiry offered more specific recommendations, while rapid crowd sourcing provided quicker results.
• Unique Contributions: Contextual inquiry identified strategies related to adapting interventions to context, whereas rapid crowd sourcing highlighted incentive-based strategies.
• Resource Considerations: Despite requiring more personnel time, contextual inquiry was less costly overall compared to the innovation tournament.

Implications for Practitioners

The choice between these methods depends on your specific needs and resources:

• If you require detailed, context-specific strategies and have the time to invest, traditional contextual inquiry might be more suitable.
• If speed is a priority and you have access to technological resources, rapid crowd sourcing could be advantageous.

Practitioners are encouraged to consider these findings when designing implementation strategies for their settings. By understanding the strengths and limitations of each method, you can make informed decisions that align with your goals and resources.

For those interested in delving deeper into this research, further exploration into participatory design methods is recommended. Understanding how these approaches can be tailored to different contexts will enhance your ability to implement effective evidence-based practices.

To read the original research paper, please follow this link: Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing.