A research and evaluation capacity building model in Western Australia

Abstract

Evaluation of public health programs, services and policies is increasingly required to demonstrate effectiveness. Funding constraints necessitate that existing programs, services and policies be evaluated and their findings disseminated. Evidence-informed practice and policy is also desirable to maximise investments in public health. Partnerships between public health researchers, service providers and policymakers can help address evaluation knowledge and skills gaps. The Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN) aims to build research and evaluation capacity in the sexual health and blood-borne virus sector in Western Australia (WA). Partners' perspectives of the SiREN model after 2 years were explored. Qualitative written responses from service providers, policymakers and researchers about the SiREN model were analysed thematically. Service providers reported that participation in SiREN prompted them to consider evaluation earlier in the planning process and increased their appreciation of the value of evaluation. Policymakers noted benefits of the model in generating local evidence and highlighting local issues of importance for consideration at a national level. Researchers identified challenges communicating the services available through SiREN and the time investment needed to develop effective collaborative partnerships. Stronger engagement between public health researchers, service providers and policymakers through collaborative partnerships has the potential to improve evidence generation and evidence translation. These outcomes require long-term funding and commitment from all partners to develop and maintain partnerships. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation can ensure the partnership remains responsive to the needs of key stakeholders. The findings are applicable to many sectors.

An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies

“…A lack of access to evaluation expertise and insufficient resources have been frequently identified as barriers to health promotion evaluation . Working in partnership with external evaluators has been proposed by practitioners as a potential solution to overcoming barriers to evaluation . Qualitative studies have also identified research‐practice partnerships as a facilitator to evaluation, particularly if there is an ongoing collaborative relationship with the program team .…”

“…While a number of generic health promotion evaluation frameworks exist, guidance and consistency of evaluation practices within an area of practice may facilitate higher quality evaluation . Such guidance is currently available to sexual health and blood borne virus health promotion and physical activity . Thirdly, this study builds on a wider body of research concerning evidence generation and use in health promotion and recommendations for capacity building to support the application of research into practice remain relevant, particularly in relation to leadership, organisational culture, policies, systems and structures, resource allocation and practitioner skills .…”

Trends in the Authorship of Peer Reviewed Publications in the Urology Literature

“…As medical knowledge advances there is increased collaboration among departments and institutions in both medical practice and research. 17–19 It is likely that multidisciplinary and multi-institutional efforts would garner a higher number of authors even if not in the setting of randomized trials. For instance, multi-institutional consortia reporting large datasets for clinical outcomes or comparative effectiveness requires authors to be represented from a number of different departments or institutions.…”

Taking a systems approach to explore the impacts and outcomes of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: a protocol

“…SiREN facilitates and participates in partnerships between research, government and non-government organisations to apply for competitive grant funding and undertake research and evaluation projects; provides tailored project planning, research and evaluation support; provides web-based resources to support evidence-informed policy and practice; hosts a biennial research and evaluation symposium that brings together those working in sexual health or bloodborne viruses across Australia; and maintains a network (database) of approximately 300 professionals with whom it shares relevant research and evaluation evidence, news, funding opportunities and events via electronic mail. A detailed description of the SiREN model has been published elsewhere 9…”

“…Despite their potential, there is scant evidence describing the kinds of long-term changes that can be achieved by these partnerships, and of the processes that lead to these changes 15. Evaluations of SiREN conducted 2 and 3 years after its inception established that SiREN had contributed to improving research, evaluation and evidence-informed practice, attitudes, skills and knowledge 9 16. While these short-term impacts are promising, exploration of long-term outcomes and the processes by which these are achieved is important given the potential of partnership models, like SiREN, to support the practice of public health.…”