Dataset Information

What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve?

ABSTRACT: Funding for research is under pressure to be accountable in terms of benefits and translation of research findings into practice and policy. Primary health care research has considerable potential to improve health care in a wide range of settings, but little is known about the extent to which these impacts actually occur. This study examines the impact of individual primary health care research projects on policy and practice from the perspective of Chief Investigators (CIs).The project used an online survey adapted from the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to collect information about the impacts that CIs expected and achieved from primary health care research projects funded by Australian national competitive grants.Chief Investigators (CIs) provided information about seventeen completed projects. While no CI expected their project to have an impact in every domain of the framework used in the survey, 76% achieved at least half the impacts they expected. Sixteen projects had published and/or presented their work, 10 projects included 11 doctorate awards in their research capacity domain. All CIs expected their research to lead to further research opportunities with 11 achieving this. Ten CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for policy making but only four reported their research had influenced policy making. However 11 CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for organizational decision making and eight reported their research had influenced organizational decision making.CIs reported that nationally funded primary health care research projects made an impact on knowledge production, staff development and further research, areas within the realm of influence of the research team and within the scope of awareness of the CIs. Some also made an impact on policy and organizational decision-making, and on localized clinical practice and service delivery. CIs reported few broader economic benefits from their research. Routine use of an instrument of this type would facilitate primary health care research funders' determination of the payback for funding of research in this sector.

SUBMITTER: Reed RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3256100 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve?

Reed Richard L RL Kalucy Elizabeth C EC Jackson-Bowers Eleanor E McIntyre Ellen E

Health research policy and systems 20111130

<h4>Background</h4>Funding for research is under pressure to be accountable in terms of benefits and translation of research findings into practice and policy. Primary health care research has considerable potential to improve health care in a wide range of settings, but little is known about the extent to which these impacts actually occur. This study examines the impact of individual primary health care research projects on policy and practice from the perspective of Chief Investigators (CIs). ...[more]

PMID: 22128827

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.MethodsA qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.ConclusionsThis study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

Project description:BackgroundTranslational research is an ideology focussed on streamlining the transition of novel research into clinical practice to ultimately benefit populations. Central to this approach is overcoming barriers to research involvement and interdisciplinary collaboration. Identifying barriers has been the subject of several studies focused on communities with large academic hospitals. The Windsor-Essex region is currently built around community hospitals which have less of an emphasis on research, employ fewer physicians holding academic appointments and generally do not provide incentivised time for research and training. In this study, we surveyed clinicians and researchers working in Windsor-Essex to gain insight into barriers to translational research important to those working in smaller sized, community-based research networks.MethodsUsing an anonymous close-ended Qualtrics survey distributed via email, we surveyed faculty members from The University of Windsor and clinical care providers from Windsor-Essex (n = 68). This included 24 physicians, 14 allied health professionals, and 30 non-clinician researchers.ResultsManaging competing interests, lack of time, funding, infrastructure, and networks were identified by greater than 75% of participants as barriers to research involvement. 62% of physicians identified the lack of permanent post-graduate medical trainees as a barrier. Clinicians were consistently less experienced in research skills compared to others; particularly in publishing results and applying for funding (p < 0.001). Schedule incompatibility, funding issues and identifying interested collaborators with overlapping interests were identified as barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration by 80% of participants. Moreover, 46% of those surveyed were unhappy with their research involvement and these individuals were 13% more likely to perceive research as important for their career progression (p = 0.244).ConclusionsThis study identifies several important barriers to translational research in Windsor-Essex and suggests that many motivated researchers are unhappy with their current involvement. These results will inform decision making in the research community of Windsor-Essex and provides insight for communities of similar size and research capacity. Ultimately, enabling the translation of clinical research in all communities is required to ensure equitable access to cutting edge care.

Project description:With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Worldwide, there are competing norms driving health system changes and reorganisation. One such norm is that of health systems' responsibilities for population health as distinct from a focus on clinical services. In this paper we report on a case study of population health planning in Australian primary health care (PHC) organisations (Medicare Locals, 2011-2015). Drawing on institutional theory, we describe how institutional forces, ideas and actors shaped such planning. METHODS:We reviewed the planning documents of the 61 Medicare Locals and rated population health activities in each Medicare Local. We also conducted an online survey and 50 interviews with Medicare Local senior staff, and an interview and focus group with Federal Department of Health staff. RESULTS:Despite policy emphasis on population health, Medicare Locals reported higher levels of effort and capacity in providing clinical services. Health promotion and social determinants of health activities were undertaken on an ad hoc basis. Regulatory conditions imposed by the federal government including funding priorities and time schedules, were the predominant forces constraining population health planning. In some Medicare Locals, this was in conflict with the normative values and what Medicare Locals felt ought to be done. The alignment between the governmental and the cultural-cognitive forces of a narrow biomedical approach privileged clinical practice and ascribed less legitimacy to action on social determinants of health. Our study also shed light on the range of PHC actors and how their agency influenced Medicare Locals' performance in population health. The presence of senior staff or community boards with a strong commitment to population health were important in directing action towards population health and equity. CONCLUSIONS:There are numerous institutional, normative and cultural factors influencing population health planning. The experience of Australian Medicare Locals highlights the difficulties of planning in such a way that the impact of the social determinants on health and health equity are taken into account. The policy environment favours a focus on clinical services to the detriment of health promotion informed by a social determinants focus.

Project description:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have poorer cancer outcomes and experience 30% higher mortality rates compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Primary health care (PHC) services are increasingly being recognized as pivotal in improving Indigenous cancer patient outcomes. It is currently unknown whether patient information systems and practices in PHC settings accurately record Indigenous and cancer status. Being able to identify Indigenous cancer patients accessing services in PHC settings is the first step in improving outcomes.Aboriginal Medical Centres, mainstream (non-Indigenous specific), and government-operated centers in Queensland were contacted and data were collected by telephone during the period from 2014 to 2016. Participants were asked to (i) identify the number of patients diagnosed with cancer attending the service in the previous year; (ii) identify the Indigenous status of these patients and if this information was available; and (iii) advise how this information was obtained.Ten primary health care centers (PHCCs) across Queensland participated in this study. Four centers were located in regional areas, three in remote areas and three in major cities. All participating centers reported ability to identify Indigenous cancer patients attending their service and utilizing electronic Patient Care Information Systems (PCIS) to manage their records; however, not all centers were able to identify Indigenous cancer patients in this way. Indigenous cancer patients were identified by PHCCs using PCIS (n = 8), searching paper records (n = 1), and combination of PCIS and staff recall (n = 1). Six different types of PCIS were being utilized by participating centers. There was no standardized way to identify Indigenous cancer patients across centers. Health service information systems, search functions and capacities of systems, and staff skill in extracting data using PCIS varied between centers.It is crucial to be able to easily identify Indigenous cancer patients accessing health services in the PHC setting to monitor progress, improve and evaluate care, and ultimately improve Indigenous cancer outcomes. It is also important for PHC staff to receive adequate training and support to utilize PCISs efficiently and effectively.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2015, it was estimated that the burden of disease in Iran comprised of 19 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), 74% of which were due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The observed leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (41.9%), neoplasms (14.9%), and road traffic injuries (7.4%). Even so, the health research investment in Iran continues to remain limited. This study aims to identify national health research priorities in Iran for the next five years to assist the efficient use of resources towards achieving the long-term health targets.MethodsAdapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, this study engaged 48 prominent Iranian academic leaders in the areas related to Iran's long-term health targets, a group of research funders and policy makers, and 68 stakeholders from the wider society. 128 proposed research questions were scored independently using a set of five criteria: feasibility, impact on health, impact on economy, capacity building, and equity.FindingsThe top-10 priorities were focused on the research questions relating to: health insurance system reforms to improve equity; integration of NCDs prevention strategy into primary health care; cost-effective population-level interventions for NCDs and road traffic injury prevention; tailoring medical qualifications; epidemiological assessment of NCDs by geographic areas; equality in the distribution of health resources and services; current and future common health problems in Iran's elderly and strategies to reduce their economic burden; the status of antibiotic resistance in Iran and strategies to promote rational use of antibiotics; the health impacts of water crisis; and research to replace the physician-centered health system with a team-based one.ConclusionsThese findings highlight consensus amongst various prominent Iranian researchers and stakeholders over the research priorities that require investment to generate information and knowledge relevant to the national health targets and policies. The exercise should assist in addressing the knowledge gaps to support both the National General Health Policies by 2025 and the health targets of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Dataset Information

What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve?

Publications

What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets