Opinion Leaders

From CFIR Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Opinion Leaders
Taxonomy
Domain
Process
Construct
Engaging
Siblings
Champions
External Change Agents
Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders
Opinion Leaders
Measurement maturity
Quantitative tools


Contents

Version 1.0

Individuals in an organization who have formal or informal influence on the attitudes and beliefs of their colleagues with respect to implementing the intervention.

Description

Individuals in an organization who have formal or informal influence on the attitudes and beliefs of their colleagues with respect to implementing the intervention[1][2]. There is general agreement that there are two different types of opinion leaders, experts and peers. Expert opinion leaders exert influence through their authority and status[1]. Peer opinion leaders exert influence through their representativeness and credibility[1].

Rationale for inclusion

Individuals in an organization who have formal or informal influence on the attitudes and beliefs of their colleagues with respect to implementing the intervention[1][2]. There is general agreement that there are 2 different types of opinion leaders: 1) experts; and 2) peers[3]. Rogers defines opinion leaders in terms of the degree to which an individual is able to influence other attitudes or overt behavior informally in a desired way[2]. But opinion leaders can also exert a strong negative effect as well[3]. External change agents often use opinion leaders in a social system as “lieutenants” in diffusion activities[2]. Opinion leaders can lose respect of their peers if they come to be regarded as a professional change agent[2]. The role and definition of opinion leaders is varied and complex. Its effect on promoting use of interventions is mixed based on a review of randomized control trials ranging from -6% to +25% in improving behaviors of healthcare professionals[4].

Measurement

Qualitative codebook guidelines

Inclusion criteria

Include statements related to engagement strategies and outcomes, e.g., how the opinion leader became engaged with the innovation and what their role is in implementation. Note: Although both strategies and outcomes are coded here, the outcome of efforts to engage staff determines the rating, i.e. if there are repeated attempts to engage an opinion leader that are not successful, or if the opinion leader leaves the organization and this role is vacant, the construct receives a negative rating. In addition, you may also want to code the "quality" of the opinion leader here - their capabilities, motivation, and skills, i.e. how good they are at their job, and this affects the rating as well.



Exclusion criteria


Quantitative measures

Attachments

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations 5th edition. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Locock L, Dopson S, Chambers D, Gabbay J: Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Soc Sci Med 2001, 53:745-757.
  4. Doumit G, Gattellari M, Grimshaw J, O'Brien MA: Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD000125.
Personal tools
Etiquette and Help