Table 1 Translation of the standards through the process framework of the development of cooperative inter-organizational relationships
Process | MAST | EQ-5D-5 L | PSQ-18 | CANE-S |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Negotiations | Expectations: - Evaluation domains in the framework should be relevant to the contractual scope Uncertainties: No issues observed Bargaining: No issues observed | Expectations: - Validity in all project locations - Adequacy for the patient group Uncertainties: How should the expectations be aligned when the planned standard is not valid in some project locations? Bargaining: Whether to use a common valid but generic standard or a disease-specific, but different standards for different locations | Expectations: - Validity in all project locations - Adequacy for the patient group Uncertainties: No issues observed Bargaining: - What is the best way to capture patient perceptions? | Expectations: - Validity in all project locations - Adequacy for the patient group Uncertainties: No issues observed Bargaining: - Lack of experience - Human resources needed |
Commitments | - Usage of MAST approved standards | - Generic standard EQ-5D-5 L selected | - Mixed method approach selected After re-negotiation, It was decided to only use a qualitative interview | - Qualitative interview approach selected |
Executions | Operationalizing evaluation domains of MAST | - Terms for data collection defined | - Terms for data collection defined - Re-negotiated the use of PSQ-18 after doubts emerged - Defining the interview protocol | - Terms for data collection defined - Defining the interview protocol |
Translation strategy used | Addition: An extra evaluation domain was added to the MAST domains | Copying: EQ-5D-5 L was applied in its original form | Alteration: Some PSQ-18 elements were converted to questions in a customized qualitative interview | Alteration: Some CANE-S elements were converted to questions in a customized qualitative interview |