The feasibility of determining the impact of primary health care research projects using the Payback Framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary health care research is under pressure to be accountable to funders in terms of benefits for practice and policy. However, methods to assess the impact of primary health care research must be appropriate to use with the diverse topics, settings and approaches of this sector. This project explored the feasibility of using the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to determine the impact of a stratified random sample (n = 4) of competitively funded, primary health care research projects.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The project conducted telephone interviews based on the Payback Framework with leaders of the research teams and nominated users of their research, used bibliometric methods for assessing impact through publication outputs and obtained documentary evidence of impact where possible. The purpose was to determine the effectiveness of the data collection methods and the applicability of the Payback Framework, and any other issues which arose around the assessment of impact of primary health care research.</p> <p>Results and discussion</p> <p>The thirteen interviews were resource intensive to organise conduct and analyse but provided better information about impact than bibliometric analysis or documentary analysis. Bibliometric analysis of the papers published from the four projects was hampered by the inclusion of only one of the journals in major citation indexes. Document analysis provided more evidence of dissemination than of impact.</p> <p>The payback framework and logic model were a sound basis for assessing impact. Chief investigators and nominated users of research provided substantial information relevant to the impact categories closest to their spheres of influence and awareness, but less about the impact their research had on the wider health sector, population health or economic benefits. An additional category of impact emerged from the interviews, that of strengthening research networks which could enhance the impact of later work. The framework provided rich information about the pathways to impact, better understanding of which may enhance impact.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>It is feasible to use the Buxton and Hanney Payback framework and logic model to determine the proximal impacts of primary health care research. Though resource intensive, telephone interviews of chief investigators and nominated users provided rich information.</p

The Abbey pain scale: a 1-minute numerical indicator for people with end-stage dementia

The need for a specialized clinical regimen for patients with dementia who require palliative care has only recently been recognized. Structured approaches to palliative care are not well developed. The recognition and treatment of pain is an important part of this management risk. However, pain is consistently underdiagnosed and undertreated in this population. A factor contributing to this has been a lack of appropriate tools to help recognize and document pain. This study sought to develop and validate an easy-to-use pain scale for use in residential aged care homes. The tool was developed with residents with end- or late-stage dementia who were unable to articulate their needs, identified by the registered nurses who knew them. Results showed that following pain-relief intervention the average pain score recorded using the scale fell by more than half. A paired Student's t-test showed the reduction to be highly significant (P<0.001). Validity and internal reliability, assessed by calculating Gamma and Cronbach's alpha, were found to be satisfactory. Qualitative evidence gathered from users of the scale indicated that it was considered a useful clinical device that could be completed within one minute. Further analysis of the use of the scale in clinical settings, testing of inter-rater reliability and examination of the limitations found in this study will commence early in 2004.Abbey, J; Piller, N; De Bellis, A; Esterman, A; Parker, D; Giles, L. and Lowcay B.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1496643