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

Building better research partnerships by understanding how Aboriginal health communities perceive and use data: a semi structured interview study

The aim of this study is to describe the perspectives of ACCHS health staff towards data and to identify potential strategies that can maximise the efficient transfer and usage of data collected through collaborative research with the ACCHS, and enhance the capacity to effectively use research data for healthcare improvement and advocacy.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

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

HEALS (Hearing EAr health Language and Speech services) project

A key outcome for CRE and the SEARCH program has been the collection, for the first time, of information about hearing and speech development. In 2014, the NSW Ministry of Health approved $800,000 to continue providing ENT surgery and speech therapy services to children identified through SEARCH and children attending the ACCHSs who have been identified with speech and language delays and middle ear disease. The deliverables for 2014 included completion of service provision for HEALS project, completion of qualitative studies and the economic modelling for the scale up of HEALS into a state wide model.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

Mental healthcare pathways for urban Aboriginal children

Social and emotional wellbeing problems are the chief health issue experienced by young Australians. The small amount of information available suggests that Aboriginal young people experience even higher levels of mental health related harm. Little is known about the pathways that Aboriginal children and adolescents with mental health concerns take when accessing specialized care and to what extent services are available, accessible and culturally appropriate. Further, although GPs are generally considered the gatekeepers to accessing specialist mental health services it is unclear the extent to which they feel confident and equipped to detect, assess and refer children for suspected mental health concerns, particularly in Aboriginal children. This compilation of work sought to understand whether current guidelines and treatment pathways meet the needs of Aboriginal young people presenting with SEWB-related concerns and the extent to which GPs, nurses and Aboriginal Health Workers feel confident and equipped to deal with the mental health concerns they see in the children they deal with in their work at the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs). To gain this understanding two systematic reviews and a qualitative study were conducted.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.This work was supported through grants to SEARCH from the Australian Primary Care Research Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (grant numbers 358457, 512685, 1023998 and 1035378), the NSW Ministry of Health, beyondblue and the Rio Tinto Aboriginal Fund. The CRE and SEARCH are conducted in partnership with the AH&MRC and four Aboriginal medical services across NSW: Awabakal Limited, Riverina Medical and Dental Aboriginal Corporation, Sydney West Aboriginal Health Service, and Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation

Perspectives on childhood resilience among the Aboriginal community: an interview study

Australian Aboriginal children are exposed to a number of adversities that have been attributed to the downstream effects of European colonisation. Childhood adversities increase the risk of negative health and social outcomes that can contribute to longstanding mental and physical health 'gaps' between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and the high rates of youth suicide observed. Despite these challenges, most Aboriginal children are resilient and show remarkable adaption during difficult circumstances. Resilience is often mentioned in conjunction with Aboriginal people, yet there is comparatively little research investigating Aboriginal resilience in Australia, including the aetiology of resilience and strategies for promoting resilience in children. A better understanding of the factors that can enhance children�s resilience will aid in the development of targeted programs to promote better health and wellbeing outcomes for Aboriginal children who face long-standing adversity. This research was based on face-face interviews with Aboriginal health service professionals, youth workers and adult community members and aimed to describe the perspectives of members of urban and regional Aboriginal communities on childhood resilience, including how resilience can be enhanced.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

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

Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice

The effectiveness of any national healthcare system is highly correlated with the strength of primary care within that system. A strong research basis is essential for a firm and vibrant primary care system. General practitioners (GPs) are at the centre of most primary care systems.To inform on actions required to increase research capacity in general practice, particularly in low capacity countries, we collected information from the members of the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) and the European World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca).A qualitative design including eight semi-structured interviews and two discursive workshops were undertaken with members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe. Appreciative inquiry methods were utilized. Krueger's (1994) framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data.Research performance in general practice requires improvements in the following areas: visibility of research; knowledge acquisition; mentoring and exchange; networking and research networks; collaboration with industry, authorities and other stakeholders. Research capacity building (RCB) strategies need to be both flexible and financially supported. Leadership and collaboration are crucial.Members of the GP research community see the clear need for both national and international primary care research networks to facilitate appropriate RCB interventions. These interventions should be multifaceted, responding to needs at different levels and tailored to the context where they are to be implemented