Prof Heidi Muenchberger, Griffith Health Institute: Inclusive Communities and Participation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Prof Heidi Muenchberger, Griffith Health Institute: Inclusive Communities and Participation

  • 585 views
Uploaded on

Associate Professor Heidi Muenchberger, Chair of Healthy Design, Griffith Health Institute delivered this presentation at the 2013 Social Determinants of Health conference. The conference brought......

Associate Professor Heidi Muenchberger, Chair of Healthy Design, Griffith Health Institute delivered this presentation at the 2013 Social Determinants of Health conference. The conference brought together health, social services and public policy organisations to discuss how social determinants affect the health of the nation and to consider how policy decisions can be targeted to reduce health inequities. The agenda facilitated much needed discussion on new approaches to manage social determinants of health and bridge the gap in health between the socially disadvantaged and the broader Australian population. For more information about the event, please visit the conference website: http://www.informa.com.au/social-determinants.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
585
On Slideshare
585
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Engagement & Participation: Promise or Paradox? Health and Housing for People with Complex Conditions Associate Professor Heidi Muenchberger Griffith Health Institute Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 2. Creating capacity can make things worse. Increasing traffic options reduces traffic flow.
  • 3. Inclusion Paradox: Those with most to gain have least capacity to participate Those with most to contribute are least engaged in finding solutions
  • 4. Psychology of Participation Need to increase capacity for participation in the right way: targeted, with incentive to change, researchbased, without assumptions of need, and without creating more complexity
  • 5. New disability/health consumer markets demand more involvement and choice georgejulian.co.uk
  • 6. Attributes of housing for people with chronic illness/traumatic injury/disease: – – – – Where do I want to live? Who do I want to live with? What does my lifestyle look like? How much support do I need? Client Preferences – – – – – Care features Nature features Social features Physical features Symbolic/psychological features Design Attributes – – – – – Cost/price point Sustainability/ Replication Efficiency Investment Quality of life Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research Stakeholder priorities
  • 7. Where • Metro What • 3b2b Apt/s Price • $370K 1 Client Options discussed, Preferences stated, Price negotiated incorporated into the design/development, = Happy Client Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 8. Where What $ Where What $ Where What $ Where What $ • Metro • Apt • $370K Where What $ • Metro • Apt • $370K Where What $ • Metro • Apt • $370K Where What $$ Where Size • Metro • Apt • $370K • Metro • Apt • $370K • Metro • Apt • $370K • • Metro Metro • • 1b1b Apt • • $370K $370K • Semiurban • Country Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research • 2b2b • 3b2b • Apt/H • $250K • $500K • $750K 1000 Clients Sub-population
  • 9. : How to develop a competitive decision making process in the assisted living market to ensure maximum consumer participation, collaborative design and investment efficiency? : Adopt and test business processes that are more reliable, and result in greater competitive advantage, with a larger number of non-traditional stakeholders and consumers involved. Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 10. Attributes of housing for people with chronic illness/traumatic injury/disease: – – – – Where do I want to live? Who do I want to live with? What does my lifestyle look like? How much support do I need? Client Preferences – – – – – Care features Nature features Social features Physical features Symbolic/psychological features Design Attributes – – – – – Cost/price point Sustainability/ Replication Efficiency Investment Quality of life Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research Stakeholder priorities
  • 11. • Process 1: Discrete Choice Experiment (Consumers) – Wright, C;, Muenchberger, H., & Whitty, J • Process 2: Analytical Hierarchical Processing (Stakeholders) – Muenchberger, H., Kendall, E., Smith, D., & Whitty, J Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 12. • “Consumers can tell us what they like or prefer and do not like. They can tell us what they will buy and what they will not buy. But rarely can they tell us why they buy one product over another” • Discrete choice modelling (DCE) is used to simulate real-world consumer purchasing behaviour. Not used before in disability/housing. • Ideal for single purchase products over a long period of time (e.g. Housing) and where the product is complex. (i.e., products with many different possible features). • Choices are statistically related to the persons income, age, and the attributes of the product. Consumers become co-creators in new purchasing situations. • Resulting models estimate the probability that a person chooses a particular alternative. The models are often used to forecast how people’s choices will change in demographics or attributes of the alternatives. = predict demand and probable satisfaction Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 13. DCE Example Survey Question Format Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 14. • Outcome is a statistical model indicating : Best fit of a combined set of factors (likelihood significance for hypothetical model) – Actual price figure or range as optimum price point for preferences (Willingness to pay now and in future) – Actual design elements consumers will and will not compromise on – Actual grouped model of most likely set of factors consumers are willing to pay for – FURTHER ENQUIRIES: COURTNEY WRIGHT, PHD SCHOLAR, GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY AUSTRALIA. (courtney.wright@griffith.edu.au) Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 15. • • AHP (analytical hierarchical processing). Not used before in disability/housing • Stakeholders involved in the Project: – Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC) – Government body – Architecture (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, London) – NGOs( Brain Injury Association Peak Body) – NFPs (Housing for Young Adults with Complex Support Needs) – Curtin University (Western Australia) – Griffith University (Queensland) – People with brain injury, spinal cord injury and neurological conditions (MS) Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 16. AHP Example Survey Format Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 17. Example Decision Hierarchy: Projected (Muenchberger, et al, 2013) Method 1: DCE Outcomes (Consumers, Health Economists, Psychologists, Health researchers) Preference Set 1 Preference set 2 Preference set 3 Preference set 4 Preference set 5 Statistical analysis of stakeholder priorities Cost/ Sustainability/Efficiency/ Quality/ Adaptability / Community (pairwise comparisons) Housing Housing Housing Housing Aggregate Model 1 Model IV Model III Model II Rank Order (Sig) Method 2: AHP Outcomes cf. Usual Process (Health Economists, Construction and Design, Health researchers, Philanthropy Investment, Access Consultants, Civil Engineers) Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
  • 18. Assoc Professor Heidi Muenchberger h.muenchberger@griffith.edu.au Linkedin www.griffith.edu.au