4 SCMU8-08/09-0036 Supply, Delivery and Erection of boundary fences at Mt Pleasant Farm in the Nxuba Municipality.

Appointment of a service provider to render cleaning and hygienic services at EC Provincial Treasury for a period of 36 months. 7 SCMU10-08/09-0084 Establishment at OR Tambo District of Saturday school for Maths

Systematic review of the uptake and design of action research in published nursing research, 2000-2005

Action research (AR) is promoted for health care development. A systematic review was undertaken to gain insight into the uptake and designs of practice-based AR. Empirical research papers from 2000 to 2005 were extracted from CINAHL, MEDLINE and British Nursing Index, and two specialist AR journals. The initial search identified 335 papers: 38% were AR (20% were phenomenology; 32% ethnography; 10% randomised-controlled trials). Further filtering produced 62 AR papers for detailed analysis. Eighty-seven per cent of AR studies involved ‘organisational/professional development’, or ‘educational’ settings; only 13% were directly ‘clinical’. Practitioners were the main participants in 90% of studies. Seventy-two per cent of all participant groups were rated ‘active’ in the research process, yet 70% of first (lead) authors were from an academic institution. Patients/carers were generally passive in the research process and absent from the authorship. Ninety per cent of studies used two or more methods, predominantly qualitative. Forty-four per cent of articles identified external funding sources, relatively high for nursing research. Participatory AR has a strong identity in practice-based research, with a diversity of methods. The focus reflects that of nursing research generally. A high level of participation by practitioners is evident but with little equity in authorship. Service user/carer involvement should be given more prominence by researchers

Who needs what from a national health research system: Lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks. We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it. Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades - especially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed. Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science. We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund