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

Abstract

BackgroundFunding 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).MethodsThe 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 DiscussionChief 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.ConclusionCIs 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.

Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?

“…The results from this research have been reported previously in this journal [9, 10]. In this paper, we examine how CIs of primary health research projects viewed the various strategies for increasing impact and which of the available pathways they chose, and to what effect.…”

The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews

“…The quality of KCE research itself is high and in general beyond discussion. The relevance of KCE research findings is generally judged as high ” ([56], p. 111–2); some similarities with other/earlier findings about HTA being more likely to make impactReed et al, 2011 [57]; AustraliaPrimary care researchOnline survey to 41 contactable CIs (out of 59 projects); asked impacts expected, how many achieved; some projects excluded as still underway, other refused; 17 completed out of 27 eligiblePayback FrameworkFour projects (24%) influenced national/state policymaking, but 8 (47%) influenced decision making at organisational, local or regional level (combined nine separate projects (53%) had policy/organisational decision impact); despite further examples of quite high levels of impact, surveys showed “ these perceived impacts affected the health service organizations, clinicians and patients who took part in the research projects ” ([57], p. 4) (we included the lowest of the three figures given for this, 29%)The high level of use for policy and organisational decision making “ reflects a high level of engagement of the researchers with potential users of their research findings ” ([57], p. 5)RSM McClure Watters et al, 2012 [58]; Northern Ireland, United KingdomNorthern Ireland Executive: Health and Social Care Research – All fieldsDesk analysis of documents and literature, consultations with stakeholders, survey informed by Payback Framework, three case studies, benchmarking. Surveys to all PIs for projects funded between 1998 and 2011 who could be contacted (169; 84 responses, 50%)Payback Framework19% impact on policy development; for impact on health and the healthcare system: 20% health gain; 14% improvements in service delivery; 17% increased equity (the 20% figure used in our analysis represents the most conservative overall figure); substantial leveraged funds for follow-on projects came from outside Northern IrelandBecause Northern Ireland’s government did not contribute to the United Kingdom’s NIHR, researchers were not able to apply to the NIHR programmes.…”

The contribution of Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development-supported research to primary health care policy and practice

“…It has been suggested that while peer-reviewed papers are one source of information around building research capacity, there may be benefit in considering conference presentations, grants, participation in projects and workshop attendance (McGrail et al 2006;Askew et al 2008;Jansen and Ruwaard 2012). Publication rates may be unable to capture the development of emerging researchers and collaborations, and do not necessarily reflect the societal impact of research on policy and practice (Hancock and Wilson 2006;Reed et al 2011;Jansen and Ruwaard 2012). This suggests that the publication rates presented in the current study may underestimate the effectiveness of the RCBI.…”