Biomedical subjects

Jane Hendy

Publications and source records attributed to Jane Hendy.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Genetic testing and the relationship between specific and general self-efficacy.

The study examined the extent to which variations in health-specific self-efficacy could affect general self-efficacy. In a repeated measures design, 300 participants were administered an efficacy questionnaire, before and after an alleged news report, aimed at increasing or decreasing self-efficacy over genetic-testing decision making. The results found that self-efficacy over testing was significantly reduced after reading the negative news report in those participants who felt personal efficacy over testing decisions was important. Levels of general self-efficacy were also significantly decreased. The findings suggest that being denied control over a specific area of self-efficacy can have a wider impact, with a lack of perceived efficacy over testing decision making adversely impacting on levels of general well-being. The wider implications of this generalization effect and the processes involved in efficacy generalization are discussed.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Challenges to implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the context for implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) in England, actual and perceived barriers, and opportunities to facilitate implementation. DESIGN: Case studies and in depth interviews, with themes identified using a framework developed from grounded theory. SETTING: Four acute NHS trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: Senior trust managers and clinicians, including chief executives, directors of information technology, medical directors, and directors of nursing. RESULTS: The trusts varied in their circumstances, which may affect their ability to implement the NPfIT. The process of implementation has been suboptimal, leading to reports of low morale by the NHS staff responsible for implementation. The overall timetable is unrealistic, and trusts are uncertain about their implementation schedules. Short term benefits alone are unlikely to persuade NHS staff to adopt the national programme enthusiastically, and some may experience a loss of electronic functionality in the short term. CONCLUSIONS: The sociocultural challenges to implementing the NPfIT are as daunting as the technical and logistical ones. Senior NHS staff feel these have been neglected. We recommend that national programme managers prioritise strategies to improve communication with, and to gain the cooperation of, front line staff.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2004

Evidence into practice: a theory based study of achieving national health targets in primary care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study investigates reasons why general practices achieve nationally set milestones to different extents. It compares the beliefs, self-reported behaviours and organizational context of general practitioners (GPs) who have been successful in achieving milestones set out in the UK's National Service Framework (NSF) for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) with those who have been less successful. METHODS: Sixteen London GPs were interviewed, eight 'high implementers' (having met five or more of six CHD NSF milestones) and eight 'low implementers' (having met one or two milestones). Practices were matched for practice size across the groups as far as possible. The interview consisted of open-ended questions, based on theoretical constructs identified as key to implementation research in a previous project. Interviews were transcribed and analysed with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). RESULTS: There were three main areas that differentiated high and low implementers: beliefs about evidence-based practice, control over professional practice and consequences of achieving the milestones. Low implementers: (i) expressed less belief in evidence-based guidelines as the basis of their practice; (ii) were more concerned about their lack of control over the development and implementation of the guidelines (lack of ownership), and over their own practice (lack of autonomy); and (iii) perceived more negative consequences and fewer positive consequences, both for themselves and for patient care. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the application of psychological theory in trying to understand and improve professional practice. The results suggest areas that could be targeted in developing interventions to increase guideline implementation in primary care.

Coronary Disease↗