prof heidi muenchberger, griffith health institute: inclusive communities and participation
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
Engagement & Participation: Promise or Paradox?
Health and Housing for People with Complex Conditions
Associate Professor Heidi Muenchberger
Griffith Health Institute
Creating capacity can make things worse. Increasing traffic options reduces traffic flow.
Inclusion Paradox:
Those with most to gain have least capacity to participate
Those with most to contribute are least engaged in finding solutions
Psychology of Participation
Need to increase capacity for participation in the right
way: targeted, with incentive to change, research-
based, without assumptions of need, and without
creating more complexity
New disability/health consumer markets demand more involvement and choice
georgejulian.co.uk
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?
– Care features – Nature features – Social features – Physical features – Symbolic/psychological features
– Cost/price point – Sustainability/ Replication – Efficiency – Investment – Quality of life
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
Client Preferences
Design Attributes
Stakeholder priorities
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
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
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
1000 Clients
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
Where
• Metro
What
• Apt
$
• $370K
Where
•Metro
•Semi-urban
•Country
Size
•1b1b
•2b2b
•3b2b
•Apt/H
$
•$370K
•$250K
•$500K
•$750K Sub-population
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
: 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.
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?
– Care features – Nature features – Social features – Physical features – Symbolic/psychological features
– Cost/price point – Sustainability/ Replication – Efficiency – Investment – Quality of life
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
Client Preferences
Design Attributes
Stakeholder priorities
• 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
• “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
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
DCE Example Survey Question Format
• 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. ([email protected])
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
• 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
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
AHP Example Survey Format
Griffith Institute for Health and Medical Research
Housing
Model 1
Housing
Model IV
Housing
Model III
Housing
Model II
Preference
set 2
Preference
set 3
Preference
set 4
Preference
set 5
Preference
Set 1
Statistical analysis of stakeholder priorities
Cost/ Sustainability/Efficiency/ Quality/ Adaptability / Community (pairwise comparisons)
Aggregate Rank Order (Sig)
Method 1: DCE Outcomes (Consumers, Health Economists, Psychologists, Health researchers)
Method 2: AHP Outcomes cf. Usual Process (Health Economists, Construction and Design, Health researchers, Philanthropy Investment, Access Consultants, Civil Engineers)
Example Decision Hierarchy: Projected (Muenchberger, et al, 2013)
Assoc Professor Heidi Muenchberger
www.griffith.edu.au