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

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background 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). Methods 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. Results and Discussion 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. Conclusion 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

Knowledge exchange and research capacity building in urban Aboriginal health

The Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) on urban Aboriginal Child Health is linked to this unique base of information on 1600 children and their parents/ caregivers. The Centre is designed to: (a) increase the translation of knowledge arising from the SEARCH program and additional data collection undertaken as part of the CRE; (b) to enable ACCHSs to effectively use the information emerging from SEARCH to improve the quality of primary care, and; (c) enhance research capacity in primary health care within ACCHSs by increasing their capacity to undertake multidisciplinary research and knowledge translation in primary care. This work will provide evidence to support sustainable and transferable improvements in Aboriginal primary health care and, ultimately, health outcomes.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy

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

Utilization of a population health survey in policy and practice: a case study

BackgroundThere is growing interest by funding bodies and researchers in assessing the impact of research on real world policy and practice. Population health monitoring surveys provide an important source of data on the prevalence and patterns of health problems, but few empirical studies have explored if and how such data is used to influence policy or practice decisions. Here we provide a case study analysis of how the findings from an Australian population monitoring survey series of children&rsquo;s weight and weight-related behaviors (Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS)) have been used, and the key facilitators and barriers to their utilization.MethodsData collection included semi-structured interviews with the chief investigators (n = 3) and end-users (n = 9) of SPANS data to explore if, how and under what circumstances the survey findings had been used, bibliometric analysis and verification using documentary evidence. Data analysis involved thematic coding of interview data and triangulation with other data sources to produce case summaries of policy and practice impacts for each of the three survey years (1997, 2004, 2010). Case summaries were then reviewed and discussed by the authors to distil key themes on if, how and why the SPANS findings had been used to guide policy and practice.ResultsWe found that the survey findings were used for agenda setting (raising awareness of issues), identifying areas and target groups for interventions, informing new policies, and supporting and justifying existing policies and programs across a range of sectors. Reported factors influencing use of the findings were: i) the perceived credibility of survey findings; ii) dissemination strategies used; and, iii) a range of contextual factors.ConclusionsUsing a novel approach, our case study provides important new insights into how and under what circumstances population health monitoring data can be used to influence real world policy and practice. The findings highlight the importance of population monitoring programs being conducted by independent credible agencies, researchers engaging end-users from the inception of survey programs and utilizing existing policy networks and structures, and using a range of strategies to disseminate the findings that go beyond traditional peer review publications.<br /

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.</p

Setting and meeting priorities in Indigenous health research in Australia and its application in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health

Priority setting is about making decisions. Key issues faced during priority setting processes include identifying who makes these decisions, who sets the criteria, and who benefits. The paper reviews the literature and history around priority setting in research, particularly in Aboriginal health research. We explore these issues through a case study of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH)'s experience in setting and meeting priorities