Professor John N Lavis, Director of the McMaster Health Forum at McMaster University in Canada, recently addressed a CIPHER forum to share his experience in making research useful for health decision makers.
CIPHER, the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research, is an Australian collaborative research centre managed by the Sax Institute, that is investigating the tools, skills and systems that might contribute to an increased use of research evidence in policy.
For more information visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Warwick Anderson | Research funding perspectives for CIPHER forumSax Institute
Professor Warwick Anderson AM, CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council, recently addressed a CIPHER forum to share how the NHMRC was testing ways to better match research funding with policy needs.
CIPHER, the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research, is an Australian collaborative research centre managed by the Sax Institute, that is investigating the tools, skills and systems that might contribute to an increased use of research evidence in policy.
For more information visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Sally Redman | Early findings from SPIRITSax Institute
Professor Sally Redman AM, CEO of the Sax Institute, recently addressed a CIPHER forum to share how the SPIRIT trial is testing a program designed to increase the use of research in policy and programs.
CIPHER, the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research, is an Australian collaborative research centre managed by the Sax Institute, that is investigating the tools, skills and systems that might contribute to an increased use of research evidence in policy.
For more information visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Bea Brown | a locally tailored intervention to improve adherence to a clinica...Sax Institute
Bea Brown gave a presentation on her research for the Sax Institute at the University of Sydney for the School of Public Health's 2013 research presentation day.
Fidye Westgarth, Agency for Clinical InnovationSax Institute
Fidye Westgarth, Manager of the Renal Network at ACI, attended a HARC Scholars' Forum to learn how to build sustainability into clinical innovation programs. She visited various NHS sites in the UK and a conference to gather information. Key lessons included the importance of leadership, credibility, resources, stakeholder engagement, training, and networks. Her report made recommendations for ACI to demonstrate success, engage executives, ensure workforce skills, and plan sustainability into all programs. Since 2011, ACI has established new centers, introduced training, strengthened communication, and engaged clinicians to continue innovating healthcare delivery.
This document summarizes Bea Brown's scholarship objectives and learnings from a study tour related to implementation research. The objectives were to develop skills in implementation strategies, evaluation of quality programs, and strengthening relationships between the Sax Institute and international experts. Key lessons learned included the importance of organizational readiness, clinician involvement, and routine implementation. This directly informed the development of an implementation trial in cancer care.
This document summarizes different approaches used to effectively present evidence from research to policymakers. It discusses challenges policymakers face in using evidence, such as finding relevant research and interpreting research language. It then describes several methods used by organizations to help address these challenges, including providing easier access to research through summaries, syntheses, and online registries. The document examines these evidence presentation approaches used by organizations like NICE, Health Evidence, and Health Systems Evidence, highlighting their roles, products, and methods of dissemination. It concludes by reflecting on key learnings around being responsive to emerging evidence needs and using different lenses to analyze agencies' evidence needs.
This document outlines Manitoba's provincial patient-reported measurement strategy. It defines patient-reported measures and their role in patient-centered care. The strategy was developed with input from patients and the public. A provincial advisory committee with patient representatives was formed. Consultations ensured cultural and linguistic appropriateness. Valid and reliable tools will be selected and data collected electronically to integrate with health records. Results will be reported back clearly to enhance care and be understood by patients and clinicians.
Warwick Anderson | Research funding perspectives for CIPHER forumSax Institute
Professor Warwick Anderson AM, CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council, recently addressed a CIPHER forum to share how the NHMRC was testing ways to better match research funding with policy needs.
CIPHER, the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research, is an Australian collaborative research centre managed by the Sax Institute, that is investigating the tools, skills and systems that might contribute to an increased use of research evidence in policy.
For more information visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Sally Redman | Early findings from SPIRITSax Institute
Professor Sally Redman AM, CEO of the Sax Institute, recently addressed a CIPHER forum to share how the SPIRIT trial is testing a program designed to increase the use of research in policy and programs.
CIPHER, the Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research, is an Australian collaborative research centre managed by the Sax Institute, that is investigating the tools, skills and systems that might contribute to an increased use of research evidence in policy.
For more information visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Bea Brown | a locally tailored intervention to improve adherence to a clinica...Sax Institute
Bea Brown gave a presentation on her research for the Sax Institute at the University of Sydney for the School of Public Health's 2013 research presentation day.
Fidye Westgarth, Agency for Clinical InnovationSax Institute
Fidye Westgarth, Manager of the Renal Network at ACI, attended a HARC Scholars' Forum to learn how to build sustainability into clinical innovation programs. She visited various NHS sites in the UK and a conference to gather information. Key lessons included the importance of leadership, credibility, resources, stakeholder engagement, training, and networks. Her report made recommendations for ACI to demonstrate success, engage executives, ensure workforce skills, and plan sustainability into all programs. Since 2011, ACI has established new centers, introduced training, strengthened communication, and engaged clinicians to continue innovating healthcare delivery.
This document summarizes Bea Brown's scholarship objectives and learnings from a study tour related to implementation research. The objectives were to develop skills in implementation strategies, evaluation of quality programs, and strengthening relationships between the Sax Institute and international experts. Key lessons learned included the importance of organizational readiness, clinician involvement, and routine implementation. This directly informed the development of an implementation trial in cancer care.
This document summarizes different approaches used to effectively present evidence from research to policymakers. It discusses challenges policymakers face in using evidence, such as finding relevant research and interpreting research language. It then describes several methods used by organizations to help address these challenges, including providing easier access to research through summaries, syntheses, and online registries. The document examines these evidence presentation approaches used by organizations like NICE, Health Evidence, and Health Systems Evidence, highlighting their roles, products, and methods of dissemination. It concludes by reflecting on key learnings around being responsive to emerging evidence needs and using different lenses to analyze agencies' evidence needs.
This document outlines Manitoba's provincial patient-reported measurement strategy. It defines patient-reported measures and their role in patient-centered care. The strategy was developed with input from patients and the public. A provincial advisory committee with patient representatives was formed. Consultations ensured cultural and linguistic appropriateness. Valid and reliable tools will be selected and data collected electronically to integrate with health records. Results will be reported back clearly to enhance care and be understood by patients and clinicians.
Potential benefits of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in healthcare include:
1) Leveraging cross-disciplinary expertise from multiple partners to solve complex health problems and maximize resources while sharing risks.
2) Advancing therapeutic areas like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer through new treatments that improve outcomes, survival rates, and disease management.
3) Addressing unmet needs in rare diseases and furthering pharmaceutical innovation to continue improving public health and life expectancy.
4) Overcoming hurdles in drug research and development like disease heterogeneity and lack of predictive biomarkers through collaborative efforts.
Charles Tallack: Evaluation of new care models Nuffield Trust
The document discusses the evaluation of new care models being developed as part of the NHS Five Year Forward View. It outlines several new models of care including multispecialty community providers, integrated primary and acute care systems, acute care collaboration, and enhanced health in care homes. 29 organizations have been approved to develop these new care models locally. The evaluation aims to understand how the models are developed and implemented, their effects, and which elements contribute to success. Evaluation will occur throughout the development, implementation, and post-implementation phases using quantitative and qualitative methods to assess outcomes, impacts, and lessons learned. The goal is to identify replicable models of care that improve health outcomes and efficiency.
Laura Eyre and Martin Marshall: Researchers in residence Nuffield Trust
Laura Eyre, Research Associate and Martin Marshall, Professor of Healthcare Improvement at UCL give an inside perspective on moving improvement research closer to practice.
Lessons learned in using process tracing for evaluationMEASURE Evaluation
Access the recording for this Data for Impact (D4I) webinar at https://www.data4impactproject.org/lessons-learned-in-using-process-tracing-for-evaluation/
Strengthen Dissemination, Implementation and Improvement ScienceUCLA CTSI
DII Science at UCLA: Launching a New Initiative (October 25, 2013)
Presented by: Brian Mittman, Moira Inkelas, Stefanie Vassar, Ibrahima Sankare, Arturo Martinez, Arleen Brown
The UCLA CTSI Dissemination, Implementation and Improvement (DII) Science Initiative has three main goals.
1) Expand UCLA’s competitiveness for DII funding and publication opportunities
2) Position UCLA CTSI for future renewal
3) Enhance societal impact and benefits of UCLA research and improve health care quality, health behaviors and health outcomes in Los Angeles County and beyond
The DII vision is to ensure that:
- Results of clinical studies are put into practice in Southern California to benefit diverse populations
- Local providers take part in studies of how to implement, spread and scale findings and innovations
- Research, implementation and dissemination occur seamlessly by design
- Delivery systems can work with researchers to develop system solutions
- Researchers can find delivery systems and/or provider networks with which to partner on implementation-oriented funding proposals and studies
Magnus Liungman: RCTs in complex settings Nuffield Trust
Magnus Liungman and Dr Gustaf Edgren present on the lessons learned from developing a healthcare prevention intervention for frequent emergency department visitors.
Dissemination and Implementation Research - Getting FundedHopkinsCFAR
Alice Ammerman, DrPh
Director, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Professor, Department of Nutrition
Gillings School of Global Public Health
University of North Carolina
What’s Next?Practical Implementation Lessons from the Partnership for HIV-Fr...MEASURE Evaluation
The document summarizes lessons learned from the Partnership for HIV-Free Survival (PHFS) project in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. It provides an overview of PHFS evaluations and outlines key components of the PHFS approach, including keeping mother-baby pairs together, integrated services, quality improvement techniques, and community engagement. The document proposes developing a "how-to" guide sharing these lessons to help countries improve their PMTCT and pediatric HIV programs. The guide would include descriptions of PHFS components and checklists to help facilities prepare for, launch, sustain, and expand the PHFS approach.
Ruth Thorlby: capturing patient and staff thoughts in evaluation Nuffield Trust
The document discusses challenges in capturing patient and staff experiences in evaluations. It notes the importance of using a realist approach to understand what works for whom under what circumstances. It then summarizes a Nuffield Trust evaluation of six admission avoidance schemes that sought to understand user and staff experiences through mixed methods. Key challenges discussed include hidden attitudes of staff and how to properly capture user experiences through appropriate tools and methods.
Carolyn Der Vartanian, (former) Clinical Excellence CommissionSax Institute
Carolyn Der Vartanian was previously the program manager for Blood Watch and the Clinical Excellence Commission from 2006 to 2013. She won a scholarship to study social media use in healthcare. Her study tour included conferences in London, Dublin, Rochester, and Washington DC. She found that social media is important for healthcare but requires training staff, policies, and engagement. At the Clinical Excellence Commission, she helped establish social media use and training. She has since advocated for social media use in healthcare through conferences, presentations, and online discussions.
UK NSC stakeholder event 2017 Anne Mackie presentationPHEScreening
This document outlines the process for evaluating new screening program ideas and requests in the UK. It involves:
1) Proposing an idea and reviewing it against criteria by looking at literature and consulting experts. If it meets all criteria, it proceeds to pilot testing and phased national rollout.
2) If an idea meets some criteria but has important details missing, it may proceed to primary research studies.
3) If almost all criteria are met but some UK-specific information is missing, an evaluation or pilot study is recommended to collect more data before a formal recommendation.
Evidence-Informed Public Health Decisions Made Easier: Take it one Step at a ...Health Evidence™
The document outlines the steps involved in evidence-informed public health decision making. It discusses defining a focused question, efficiently searching for relevant research evidence such as from systematic reviews, critically appraising the research methods, interpreting the results and adapting the information to the local context, deciding whether and how to implement changes, and evaluating the effectiveness of changes made. The goal is to integrate the best available research evidence with local factors to inform public health policies and practices.
Showing Appreciation & Building Meaningful RelationshipsCHICommunications
Learning Objectives:
- Describe methods for meaningful relationship-building
- Discuss challenges & opportunities for implementing appreciation guidelines in your own work
- Implement methods for appreciation beyond financial compensation
Providing actionable healthcare analytics at scale: Insights from the Nationa...Nuffield Trust
Christopher Boulton, Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme Manager at the Royal College of Physicians and Rob Wakeman, Clinical Lead for Orthopaedic Surgery at the National Hip Fracture Database talk about what they have learned by analysing the national hip fracture database.
Providing actionable healthcare analytics at scale: Understanding improvement...Nuffield Trust
This document discusses measurement for quality improvement. It explains that measurement in improvement aims to provide a basis for action to improve processes and outcomes, rather than just estimating parameters. Improvement measures should be simple, specific, and available in real-time. Statistical process control methods are important to separate normal variation from changes resulting from interventions. Examples are provided of run charts measuring improvements in recording BMI for mental health patients and compliance with care bundles. The document advocates making the theories behind improvement efforts more explicit.
Effectiveness of the current dominant approach to integrated care in the NHS:...Sarah Wilson
Jonathan Stokes of the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre presents a systematic review of case management in integrated care.
This document summarizes recommendations from a workshop aimed at improving patient engagement in research. The workshop included 142 representatives from patient and research communities. Participants recommended that research evaluations: 1) pre-define engagement goals by research phase; 2) establish feedback channels for all partners; and 3) assess perceptions of engagement value before and after research. Additional metrics should measure engagement quality and diversity objectively and subjectively. Funding applicants should integrate engagement evaluations, and funding could depend on evaluation results. Incentivizing co-learning and including patient experts could strengthen engagement. Evaluations should link engagement quality to research quality and impact.
Outcomes research examines the effects of healthcare treatments and services on individuals and populations. It provides evidence about decisions made in healthcare. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funds comparative clinical research focused on outcomes important to patients, with the goal of improving healthcare quality and relevance. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also funds outcomes research to improve safety and quality, and helps implement research findings into practice. While outcomes research can improve care and patient satisfaction, it also requires significant funding and time, and changing practice based on results can be difficult.
Supporting the use of evidence by policy makers in LMIC: the evidence-informe...cmaverga
The document discusses efforts to strengthen the use of research evidence in health policymaking in low and middle income countries. It outlines challenges in linking research to policy, including research not being valued, relevant, or easy to use by policymakers. It then describes Evidence-Informed Policy Networks (EVIPNet) supported by WHO to address these challenges. EVIPNet supports multi-faceted partnerships in various regions/countries to improve the uptake of research in policy. Progress and activities of EVIPNet partnerships in different areas are then outlined.
This document provides an overview of key components to include when designing quantitative research studies. It discusses the importance of stating study variables, identifying the research design and how it connects to research questions. It also addresses time and resource constraints, methodology considerations like sampling strategies and data collection procedures. The document outlines important elements for the data analysis plan and addressing threats to validity. Ethical procedures for access, data treatment, and IRB approval are also reviewed.
Potential benefits of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in healthcare include:
1) Leveraging cross-disciplinary expertise from multiple partners to solve complex health problems and maximize resources while sharing risks.
2) Advancing therapeutic areas like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer through new treatments that improve outcomes, survival rates, and disease management.
3) Addressing unmet needs in rare diseases and furthering pharmaceutical innovation to continue improving public health and life expectancy.
4) Overcoming hurdles in drug research and development like disease heterogeneity and lack of predictive biomarkers through collaborative efforts.
Charles Tallack: Evaluation of new care models Nuffield Trust
The document discusses the evaluation of new care models being developed as part of the NHS Five Year Forward View. It outlines several new models of care including multispecialty community providers, integrated primary and acute care systems, acute care collaboration, and enhanced health in care homes. 29 organizations have been approved to develop these new care models locally. The evaluation aims to understand how the models are developed and implemented, their effects, and which elements contribute to success. Evaluation will occur throughout the development, implementation, and post-implementation phases using quantitative and qualitative methods to assess outcomes, impacts, and lessons learned. The goal is to identify replicable models of care that improve health outcomes and efficiency.
Laura Eyre and Martin Marshall: Researchers in residence Nuffield Trust
Laura Eyre, Research Associate and Martin Marshall, Professor of Healthcare Improvement at UCL give an inside perspective on moving improvement research closer to practice.
Lessons learned in using process tracing for evaluationMEASURE Evaluation
Access the recording for this Data for Impact (D4I) webinar at https://www.data4impactproject.org/lessons-learned-in-using-process-tracing-for-evaluation/
Strengthen Dissemination, Implementation and Improvement ScienceUCLA CTSI
DII Science at UCLA: Launching a New Initiative (October 25, 2013)
Presented by: Brian Mittman, Moira Inkelas, Stefanie Vassar, Ibrahima Sankare, Arturo Martinez, Arleen Brown
The UCLA CTSI Dissemination, Implementation and Improvement (DII) Science Initiative has three main goals.
1) Expand UCLA’s competitiveness for DII funding and publication opportunities
2) Position UCLA CTSI for future renewal
3) Enhance societal impact and benefits of UCLA research and improve health care quality, health behaviors and health outcomes in Los Angeles County and beyond
The DII vision is to ensure that:
- Results of clinical studies are put into practice in Southern California to benefit diverse populations
- Local providers take part in studies of how to implement, spread and scale findings and innovations
- Research, implementation and dissemination occur seamlessly by design
- Delivery systems can work with researchers to develop system solutions
- Researchers can find delivery systems and/or provider networks with which to partner on implementation-oriented funding proposals and studies
Magnus Liungman: RCTs in complex settings Nuffield Trust
Magnus Liungman and Dr Gustaf Edgren present on the lessons learned from developing a healthcare prevention intervention for frequent emergency department visitors.
Dissemination and Implementation Research - Getting FundedHopkinsCFAR
Alice Ammerman, DrPh
Director, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Professor, Department of Nutrition
Gillings School of Global Public Health
University of North Carolina
What’s Next?Practical Implementation Lessons from the Partnership for HIV-Fr...MEASURE Evaluation
The document summarizes lessons learned from the Partnership for HIV-Free Survival (PHFS) project in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. It provides an overview of PHFS evaluations and outlines key components of the PHFS approach, including keeping mother-baby pairs together, integrated services, quality improvement techniques, and community engagement. The document proposes developing a "how-to" guide sharing these lessons to help countries improve their PMTCT and pediatric HIV programs. The guide would include descriptions of PHFS components and checklists to help facilities prepare for, launch, sustain, and expand the PHFS approach.
Ruth Thorlby: capturing patient and staff thoughts in evaluation Nuffield Trust
The document discusses challenges in capturing patient and staff experiences in evaluations. It notes the importance of using a realist approach to understand what works for whom under what circumstances. It then summarizes a Nuffield Trust evaluation of six admission avoidance schemes that sought to understand user and staff experiences through mixed methods. Key challenges discussed include hidden attitudes of staff and how to properly capture user experiences through appropriate tools and methods.
Carolyn Der Vartanian, (former) Clinical Excellence CommissionSax Institute
Carolyn Der Vartanian was previously the program manager for Blood Watch and the Clinical Excellence Commission from 2006 to 2013. She won a scholarship to study social media use in healthcare. Her study tour included conferences in London, Dublin, Rochester, and Washington DC. She found that social media is important for healthcare but requires training staff, policies, and engagement. At the Clinical Excellence Commission, she helped establish social media use and training. She has since advocated for social media use in healthcare through conferences, presentations, and online discussions.
UK NSC stakeholder event 2017 Anne Mackie presentationPHEScreening
This document outlines the process for evaluating new screening program ideas and requests in the UK. It involves:
1) Proposing an idea and reviewing it against criteria by looking at literature and consulting experts. If it meets all criteria, it proceeds to pilot testing and phased national rollout.
2) If an idea meets some criteria but has important details missing, it may proceed to primary research studies.
3) If almost all criteria are met but some UK-specific information is missing, an evaluation or pilot study is recommended to collect more data before a formal recommendation.
Evidence-Informed Public Health Decisions Made Easier: Take it one Step at a ...Health Evidence™
The document outlines the steps involved in evidence-informed public health decision making. It discusses defining a focused question, efficiently searching for relevant research evidence such as from systematic reviews, critically appraising the research methods, interpreting the results and adapting the information to the local context, deciding whether and how to implement changes, and evaluating the effectiveness of changes made. The goal is to integrate the best available research evidence with local factors to inform public health policies and practices.
Showing Appreciation & Building Meaningful RelationshipsCHICommunications
Learning Objectives:
- Describe methods for meaningful relationship-building
- Discuss challenges & opportunities for implementing appreciation guidelines in your own work
- Implement methods for appreciation beyond financial compensation
Providing actionable healthcare analytics at scale: Insights from the Nationa...Nuffield Trust
Christopher Boulton, Falls and Fragility Fracture Audit Programme Manager at the Royal College of Physicians and Rob Wakeman, Clinical Lead for Orthopaedic Surgery at the National Hip Fracture Database talk about what they have learned by analysing the national hip fracture database.
Providing actionable healthcare analytics at scale: Understanding improvement...Nuffield Trust
This document discusses measurement for quality improvement. It explains that measurement in improvement aims to provide a basis for action to improve processes and outcomes, rather than just estimating parameters. Improvement measures should be simple, specific, and available in real-time. Statistical process control methods are important to separate normal variation from changes resulting from interventions. Examples are provided of run charts measuring improvements in recording BMI for mental health patients and compliance with care bundles. The document advocates making the theories behind improvement efforts more explicit.
Effectiveness of the current dominant approach to integrated care in the NHS:...Sarah Wilson
Jonathan Stokes of the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre presents a systematic review of case management in integrated care.
This document summarizes recommendations from a workshop aimed at improving patient engagement in research. The workshop included 142 representatives from patient and research communities. Participants recommended that research evaluations: 1) pre-define engagement goals by research phase; 2) establish feedback channels for all partners; and 3) assess perceptions of engagement value before and after research. Additional metrics should measure engagement quality and diversity objectively and subjectively. Funding applicants should integrate engagement evaluations, and funding could depend on evaluation results. Incentivizing co-learning and including patient experts could strengthen engagement. Evaluations should link engagement quality to research quality and impact.
Outcomes research examines the effects of healthcare treatments and services on individuals and populations. It provides evidence about decisions made in healthcare. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funds comparative clinical research focused on outcomes important to patients, with the goal of improving healthcare quality and relevance. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also funds outcomes research to improve safety and quality, and helps implement research findings into practice. While outcomes research can improve care and patient satisfaction, it also requires significant funding and time, and changing practice based on results can be difficult.
Supporting the use of evidence by policy makers in LMIC: the evidence-informe...cmaverga
The document discusses efforts to strengthen the use of research evidence in health policymaking in low and middle income countries. It outlines challenges in linking research to policy, including research not being valued, relevant, or easy to use by policymakers. It then describes Evidence-Informed Policy Networks (EVIPNet) supported by WHO to address these challenges. EVIPNet supports multi-faceted partnerships in various regions/countries to improve the uptake of research in policy. Progress and activities of EVIPNet partnerships in different areas are then outlined.
This document provides an overview of key components to include when designing quantitative research studies. It discusses the importance of stating study variables, identifying the research design and how it connects to research questions. It also addresses time and resource constraints, methodology considerations like sampling strategies and data collection procedures. The document outlines important elements for the data analysis plan and addressing threats to validity. Ethical procedures for access, data treatment, and IRB approval are also reviewed.
Class 6 research quality in qualitative methods 3 2-17tjcarter
This document discusses key ethical issues and methodological considerations for conducting Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) research. It outlines assumptions of qualitative research designs, including that they seek to understand meaning and experience rather than generate generalized knowledge. It also discusses eight stages of formative research to generate options and assess interventions. The document emphasizes rigor in qualitative research through credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. It explores mixed methods approaches and priorities for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods.
research process in nursing nursing process.ppsxlovedhaliwal1
The document outlines the key objectives and steps of the research process. The objectives of research include discovering new facts, verifying important facts, analyzing phenomena, identifying cause-and-effect relationships, developing new tools and theories, and solving problems. The research process involves exploration, literature review, research design, execution, and following up. It describes each step, including formulating research questions, reviewing literature, designing studies, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. The overall goal is to systematically investigate research problems and add to scientific knowledge.
The document discusses key aspects of research methodology. It defines research as a systematic, rigorous process of inquiry aimed at discovering and interpreting facts. The characteristics of good research are that it is controlled, empirical, and can withstand critical analysis. Research involves defining a problem, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. Key steps in the research process are problem identification, literature review, design, data collection and analysis, interpretation and reporting conclusions. The summary provides a high-level overview of the main topics and process discussed in the document.
Personal online reputation: the development of an approach to investigate how...Frances Ryan
Paper presented at International Data and Information Conference, 13 January 2016
Personal online reputation: the development of an approach to investigate how personal reputation is evaluated and managed in online environments
By Frances VC Ryan, Peter Cruickshank, Hazel Hall, and Alistair Lawson (Edinburgh Napier University)
Introduction to Focus Groups, Odum Institute, October 30egeisen
An introduction to conducting focus groups for social science research. The course includes information on developing protocol guides, moderating focus groups, analyzing results, and reporting findings.
This action research study analyzed factors influencing students at risk of dropping out at San Miguel National High School. The researcher identified 128 students at risk and used the Family, Individual, Community, and School framework to determine causes. Most at-risk students were male in grades 7 and 8. Individual factors like lack of interest in school were most common. The school's interventions like parent consultations and student monitoring were found to help students case by case with collaboration. Further guidance counseling improvements and funding were recommended.
This document provides an overview of operational research. It discusses how operational research uses analytical methods to help make better decisions and optimize resource allocation. The history section notes that operational research originated from military planning efforts in World War II and has since expanded into various industries. Some key methods covered include simulation, optimization, and data analysis. The operational research process typically involves identifying problems, finding potential solutions, testing solutions, utilizing and disseminating results. Various models are also used like allocation, inventory, sequencing and waiting line models.
This document provides advice on submitting a research proposal for ethical review. It outlines key learning outcomes around research governance and ethics. Important components of a research proposal are identified, including background, objectives, methods, ethical considerations and dissemination plans. Potential ethical issues that should be addressed are informed consent, confidentiality, conflict of interest, risks to participants and researchers, and considerations for vulnerable groups. Examples of past unethical experiments are provided to illustrate the importance of ethical review.
"Thank you all for coming. Unfortunately we only have space for 8 participants today. I'm going to have to ask the extra folks to reschedule for another session. Please see me after to reschedule."
Participants argue or get upset with each other
This document provides an overview of conducting focus groups. It begins with ground rules for focus groups and outlines the typical course structure, including developing the protocol guide, moderating the sessions, and analyzing the data. The document explains that focus groups involve discussing a topic with a targeted group of participants. An ideal moderator is knowledgeable about the topic, has strong communication skills, and can manage group dynamics. The moderator's roles include welcoming participants, leading the discussion, and concluding the session by summarizing key themes. Questions should be open-ended to generate discussion while keeping participants focused. The protocol guide outlines the discussion topics and scripts introductory, exploration, and exit questions along with any pre/post questionnaires.
This document discusses the steps involved in conducting research. It begins by defining research and outlining its purposes such as building knowledge and increasing public awareness. It then describes the basic structure of a research paper as introduction, methods, results and discussion. The next sections explain each step of conducting research in detail, including identifying the research problem, literature review, specifying the research purpose and questions, developing hypotheses, choosing an appropriate methodology, collecting and verifying data, analyzing and interpreting results. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods are discussed. The importance of verification strategies in ensuring the reliability and validity of research findings is also highlighted.
This document discusses the important steps in formulating a research problem and developing a research question. It emphasizes that a research problem should address a specific question, rather than be an open-ended exploration. Key points covered include defining a clear and focused research question, identifying relevant variables, prioritizing problems based on criteria like relevance and feasibility, developing testable working hypotheses to guide the research, and justifying the chosen problem and research approach. Conducting a preliminary pilot study is also recommended to assess feasibility before finalizing the research plan.
This document provides an overview of the steps involved in conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. It discusses defining a research question, developing search strategies to identify relevant studies, establishing inclusion/exclusion criteria, selecting studies, extracting effect sizes from studies, and conducting a statistical analysis to summarize results. The goal is to synthesize research evidence in a transparent, reproducible manner to answer the research question.
This document discusses the scope and delimitation section of a thesis. It explains that the scope and delimitation reveals the methods, coverage, parameters, instruments, participants, and protocols used in the research. It declares the choices made by the researcher during the research process, such as limiting the study to a specific population, research location, duration, research method, data gathering procedures, instruments used, and data analysis techniques. The delimitations serve to set clear boundaries for the research.
Operational research aims to apply analytical methods to improve decision-making and resource allocation in various fields, including health care. It originated during World War II to study military problems scientifically. Now, operational research techniques are used to identify issues in health programs, test solutions to address those issues, and evaluate changes made to programs. The goal is to generate practical evidence to improve implementation, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of programs. Common methods include simulation, optimization, and data analysis. Operational research requires collaboration between managers and researchers throughout the research process.
Ovretveit implementation science research course 1day sept 11john
1. The document discusses a workshop on implementation science and research, which aims to explain what implementation science is, describe elements of an implementation program, explain strengths and limitations of implementation research studies, and plan an implementation study.
2. Implementation research mostly describes, evaluates and explains an implementation in different real-life settings. It involves assessing elements like content, structure, strategy, and methods using tools like CESSiM and REAIM.
3. Effective implementation is important for improving health outcomes and depends more on how interventions are implemented than just the intervention itself. Factors like context affect implementation success.
Research Methods And Methods Of ResearchLaura Benitez
The research question is significant as it guides the entire research project. It frames what
information needs to be collected and analyzed to address the topic of study. A clear research
question ensures the study remains focused on a narrow scope that can feasibly be addressed within
time and resource constraints. Well-defined research questions also allow for hypotheses to be
generated about potential answers, which then guide the methodology and provide structure for
analyzing results. The findings can then be used to directly answer the original research question.
Overall, a significant research question is the foundation that holds the entire research process
together from start to finish.
Similar to John Lavis | Making research work for decision makers: international perspectives (20)
How to boost policy and program agencies’ use of researchSax Institute
Ms Gai Moore, Principal Analyst in the Sax Institute’s Knowledge Exchange division, presented new findings on what the evidence shows about what works in knowledge translation to the World Health Congress on Public Health in Melbourne in April.
SURE: Helping get the most out of longitudinal dataSax Institute
The document discusses SURE, a secure remote-access computing environment developed by the Sax Institute to facilitate analysis of large longitudinal datasets while maintaining privacy and security. SURE allows approved researchers to access de-identified unit-level data from sources like health registries and surveys within a controlled virtual workspace. Over 170 researchers across several countries are currently using SURE, which supports collaboration and analysis of datasets too large to move. SURE balances researcher access needs with protecting data privacy and custodian responsibilities.
The 45 and Up Study is the largest long-term study of aging in Australia that has recruited over 267,000 participants aged 45 and older. It collects detailed health and lifestyle data through questionnaires and links this information to participants' medical records. Over the past decade, the study has grown substantially in its number of collaborative projects, publications, and external funding. Key priorities now include facilitating new data linkages, utilizing genomic data, replenishing the cohort, and reviewing coordination of the study.
Identifying individuals at high risk for lung cancer in AustraliaSax Institute
This document summarizes research evaluating a risk prediction tool called PLCOm2012 for identifying high-risk individuals for lung cancer screening in Australia. The tool was validated using data from the 45 and Up Study, an ongoing cohort study of over 260,000 Australians aged 45 and older. Results showed PLCOm2012 predicted lung cancer incidence well and identified more high-risk individuals than the criteria used in the National Lung Screening Trial. Further modeling is still needed to fully assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using PLCOm2012 to target lung cancer screening in Australia.
This document summarizes research into the relationship between walkability and physical activity levels in Sydney, Australia. The research found:
1) Walkability, as measured by a Sydney Walkability Index, is positively associated with sufficient walking to improve health.
2) The prevalence of walking exhibits strong spatial structure across Sydney postal areas.
3) Walkability accounts for 60% of the geographic variation in walking levels not explained by individual or area-level socioeconomic factors.
This document summarizes preliminary results from a study examining pathways to lung cancer diagnosis among participants in the 45 and Up Study. The study analyzed health services data from general practitioners, hospitals, and specialists in the year leading up to a lung cancer diagnosis for 363 participants. The results showed that over 1 in 3 participants saw a general practitioner, had medical imaging ordered, and saw a lung specialist before their first emergency hospital admission. Nearly 1 in 4 participants had an emergency hospital admission as their first contact with the healthcare system after being diagnosed. The study aims to further analyze treatment pathways and compare service utilization of lung cancer patients to similar individuals without lung cancer.
The revised OECD Health Systems Performance Framework: methodological issues ...Sax Institute
The OECD is a leading organization in the international measurement of health system performance. The OECD Expert Group on Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) has recently revised its performance framework, identifying core indicators and highlighting new directions. Although improving, the capacity of countries to deliver more accurate standardized indicators still needs to be fostered. A particular aspect that deserves attention is the design, planning and implementation of public performance reporting. Such activity, strictly interrelated to the capacity of the information infrastructure, also depends from cultural, organizational and political conditions that can be differently present at the international level. The applicability of standardized principles and the evidence of improved outcomes due to public reporting systems is still questioned to a large extent. A first international conference on the topic of hospital performance reporting has been organized in Rome, Italy in 2014, followed by a second event held in Seoul, South Korea, in 2015. In his talk, Fabrizio Carinci will present recent developments of OECD projects, including:
• state of the art in the definition of OECD performance indicators
• challenges emerging from OECD R&D studies
• transferability and use of definitions at sub-national and provider level
• applicability for hospital performance benchmarking and geographical variation
• limitations imposed by the legislation on privacy and data protection
• an overarching vision of “essential levels of health information”
Through practical examples drawn from his direct experience as Member of the Bureau of the HCQI and other relevant Boards, Prof. Fabrizio Carinci will discuss the state of the art, the role played by national governments (including Australia), and potential avenues for mutual collaboration.
Evaluation of IC initiatives - challenges, approaches and evaluation of Engla...Sax Institute
This presentation from Nicholas Mays, Professor of Health Policy, Director, Policy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research & Policy focuses on the challenges, approaches and evaluation of England's Pioneers.
This document summarizes NHS England's approach to gathering patient experience and outcome data. It discusses various data collection methods, including national patient surveys, the Friends and Family Test, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). It notes that PROMs data shows patients report significant health improvements after surgeries and there is some variation in outcomes between hospitals. The document also outlines challenges in using this data and opportunities for the future, such as developing new PROMs for additional clinical areas and engaging patients more in collecting and using their own outcome data.
Anne Darton, Agency for Clinical InnovationSax Institute
The document discusses gaps in burn care identified between services in NSW, Australia and the UK. It outlines a study visit to burn units and networks in the UK to identify differences and best practices. Key gaps identified included lack of outreach programs, reintegration support, and standardized care pathways. The document also outlines steps taken in NSW to address gaps such as establishing telehealth support, developing rehabilitation programs, and investing in technology like laser scar treatment. The visit helped identify both similarities and areas for improvement between the two systems to better support burn patients.
Bronwyn Shumack, Clinical Excellence CommissionSax Institute
The document discusses a scholarship recipient's trip to study how other health jurisdictions apply human factors principles in healthcare. Some of the locations visited included hospitals in Paris, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, and conferences. The key learnings were that few presentations or organizations demonstrated a thorough understanding of applying human factors concepts to healthcare, and that specialist skills are required to properly incorporate human factors into areas like clinical redesign and medical device procurement.
Niek Klazinga | Performance reporting in OECD countriesSax Institute
Dr Niek Klazinga (Head of the Health Care Quality Indicators Project in the OECD Health Division) spoke with the HARC network in December 2014 about current developments in performance measurement and reporting.
HARC stands for the Hospital Alliance for Research Collaboration. HARC is a collaborative network of researchers, health managers, clinicians and policy makers based in NSW, Australia managed by the Sax Institute.
HARC Forums bring members of the HARC network together to discuss the latest research and analysis about important issues facing our hospitals.
For more information visit saxinstitute.org.au.
Federico Girosi | Geographic variation in medical expenditures for GP service...Sax Institute
Associate Professor Federico Girosi gave an update on her research using the 45 and Up Study data at the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study Collaborators' Meeting.
This meeting is an annual event that offers our research partners, supporters and other interested parties the opportunity to receive a comprehensive update on the 45 and Up Study’s progress and updates on research projects that are using the Study resource. The meeting is also an opportunity for researchers, health decision makers and evaluators to engage and discuss the potential for maximising the Study’s value.
For more information, visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Marianne Weber | Risk factors for erectile dysfunction in a cohort of 108 47...Sax Institute
Marianne Weber gave an update on her research using the 45 and Up Study data at the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study Collaborators' Meeting.
This meeting is an annual event that offers our research partners, supporters and other interested parties the opportunity to receive a comprehensive update on the 45 and Up Study’s progress and updates on research projects that are using the Study resource. The meeting is also an opportunity for researchers, health decision makers and evaluators to engage and discuss the potential for maximising the Study’s value.
For more information, visit www.saxinstitute.org.au.
Nicholas Mays | Evaluating current market reforms in the English NHSSax Institute
Professor Nicholas Mays, Professor of Health Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK, presented to the HARC network in January 2008 on evaluating current market reforms in the UK National Health Service.
HARC stands for the Hospital Alliance for Research Collaboration. HARC is a collaborative network of researchers, health managers, clinicians and policy makers based in NSW, Australia managed by the Sax Institute.
HARC Forums bring members of the HARC network together to discuss the latest research and analysis about important issues facing our hospitals.
For more information visit saxinstitute.org.au.
Kieran Walshe | Capitalising on opportunities for hospital reformSax Institute
Professor Kieran Walshe, from the Centre for Public Policy and Management at Manchester Business School in the UK, addressed the HARC network in April 2008 about how analysis of public service failures can help organisations learn and improve their performance.
HARC stands for the Hospital Alliance for Research Collaboration. HARC is a collaborative network of researchers, health managers, clinicians and policy makers based in NSW, Australia managed by the Sax Institute.
HARC Forums bring members of the HARC network together to discuss the latest research and analysis about important issues facing our hospitals.
For more information visit saxinstitute.org.au.
Diane Watson | Research to improve public confidence and views on quality in ...Sax Institute
Dr Diane Watson, (then International Visiting Health Services Research Fellow at the Sax Institute from the University of British Columbia, Canada) spoke with the HARC network in April 2009 about ways to strengthen public confidence in the hospital system through research and analysis.
HARC stands for the Hospital Alliance for Research Collaboration. HARC is a collaborative network of researchers, health managers, clinicians and policy makers based in NSW, Australia managed by the Sax Institute.
HARC Forums bring members of the HARC network together to discuss the latest research and analysis about important issues facing our hospitals.
For more information visit saxinstitute.org.au.
Elliott Fisher | Monitoring Variation in Health CareSax Institute
Professor Elliott Fisher, Professor of Community and Family Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School and Director of the Center for Health Policy Research at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice spoke at the 5th HARC Forum in November 2009.
The purpose of this forum was to consider how we can create and use new evidence about health system performance in order to inform policy and practice.
Professor Fisher gave an overview of the internationally leading Dartmouth Atlas Project. This project has documented glaring variations in US healthcare delivery and has radically changed the way we think about effectiveness and efficiency of health care.
HARC stands for the Hospital Alliance for Research Collaboration. HARC is a collaborative network of researchers, health managers, clinicians and policy makers based in NSW, Australia managed by the Sax Institute.
HARC Forums bring members of the HARC network together to discuss the latest research and analysis about important issues facing our hospitals.
For more information visit saxinstitute.org.au.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Food safety, prepare for the unexpected - So what can be done in order to be ready to address food safety, food Consumers, food producers and manufacturers, food transporters, food businesses, food retailers can ...
AHMR is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed online journal created to encourage and facilitate the study of all aspects (socio-economic, political, legislative and developmental) of Human Mobility in Africa. Through the publication of original research, policy discussions and evidence research papers AHMR provides a comprehensive forum devoted exclusively to the analysis of contemporaneous trends, migration patterns and some of the most important migration-related issues.
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
Contributi dei parlamentari del PD - Contributi L. 3/2019Partito democratico
DI SEGUITO SONO PUBBLICATI, AI SENSI DELL'ART. 11 DELLA LEGGE N. 3/2019, GLI IMPORTI RICEVUTI DALL'ENTRATA IN VIGORE DELLA SUDDETTA NORMA (31/01/2019) E FINO AL MESE SOLARE ANTECEDENTE QUELLO DELLA PUBBLICAZIONE SUL PRESENTE SITO
Preliminary findings _OECD field visits to ten regions in the TSI EU mining r...OECDregions
Preliminary findings from OECD field visits for the project: Enhancing EU Mining Regional Ecosystems to Support the Green Transition and Secure Mineral Raw Materials Supply.
Working with data is a challenge for many organizations. Nonprofits in particular may need to collect and analyze sensitive, incomplete, and/or biased historical data about people. In this talk, Dr. Cori Faklaris of UNC Charlotte provides an overview of current AI capabilities and weaknesses to consider when integrating current AI technologies into the data workflow. The talk is organized around three takeaways: (1) For better or sometimes worse, AI provides you with “infinite interns.” (2) Give people permission & guardrails to learn what works with these “interns” and what doesn’t. (3) Create a roadmap for adding in more AI to assist nonprofit work, along with strategies for bias mitigation.
RFP for Reno's Community Assistance CenterThis Is Reno
Property appraisals completed in May for downtown Reno’s Community Assistance and Triage Centers (CAC) reveal that repairing the buildings to bring them back into service would cost an estimated $10.1 million—nearly four times the amount previously reported by city staff.
John Lavis | Making research work for decision makers: international perspectives
1. 1
International Perspectives
Making Research Work for Decision Makers: Innovations and Priorities for Action
Sydney, Australia
John N. Lavis, MD, PhD
Professor and Director, McMaster Health Forum
McMaster University
Adjunct Professor of Global Health
Harvard School of Public Health
2. I am or was involved in
Creation and operation of the McMaster Health Forum (MHF)
Development and maintenance of Health Systems Evidence (HSE)
Development of (soon-to-launch) Health Systems Learning (HSL)
Work of WHO-sponsored Evidence-Informed Policy Networks
(EVIPNet)
Development of the SUPPORT tools
Conflict of Interest Statement
2
3. Rationales for and a definition of evidence-informed decision-making
Promising practices in addressing the challenges to finding and using
research evidence
What is needed to do this work, with a detour about
Clarifying a problem
Framing options
Identifying implementation considerations
My top three priorities for action
Overview
3
4. Which would be considered the most compelling in NSW / Australia?
Better process / more efficient process?
Better decisions / more acceptance of decisions?
Better communication of decisions / less embarrassment?
Better outcomes / better value for money?
Note that research evidence can be used in many ways
Solve particular problems at hand (instrumental)
Think about problems/options differently (conceptual)
Justify a decision made for other reasons (political)
Possible Rationales for
Evidence-Informed Decision-making
4
5. Using the best available* data and research evidence – systematically
and transparently – in the time available in each of
Agenda setting (esp. clarifying the problem iteratively, while being
attentive to policy and politics)
Policy or program development (esp. framing options iteratively)
Implementation (esp. identifying barriers / facilitators iteratively and
strategies to address them)
* Best available research evidence = highest quality, most locally
applicable, synthesized research evidence (looking first for a perfect
match to support an instrumental use and then looking more broadly to
support a conceptual use)
A Possible Definition of
Evidence-Informed Decision-making
5
6. 1. Research evidence competes with many other factors in the
decision-making process
2. Research evidence isn’t valued as an information input
3. Research evidence isn’t relevant
4. Research evidence isn’t easy to use
Caveat
The approaches I’ll describe are promising (based on a
synthesis of findings from 124 observational studies) but not yet
tested rigorously in terms of effectiveness
Addressing the Challenges in Using
Research Evidence
6
7. Challenge 1
Research evidence competes with many other factors in the
decision-making process
• Institutional constraints
• Interest group pressure
• Other ideas such as citizens’ values, tacit knowledge,
real-world views and experiences
• External events (e.g., global recession)
One option (among many) for addressing challenge 1
Improve decision-making processes (but this is beyond the
scope of many of us) or create “routine” processes (as many
countries have done for new technologies) (e.g., NICE)
Addressing Challenge 1
7
8. Challenge 2
Research evidence isn’t valued as an information input
Two options (among many) for addressing challenge 2
Convince decision-makers and stakeholders to place value
on the use of research evidence by highlighting examples
from the past or from other jurisdictions where research
evidence made the difference between policy/program
success and failure (or between communication success
and failure) (e.g., WHO)
Work with journalists to highlight statements that are and
aren’t based on the best available research evidence (e.g.,
Science-ish)
Addressing Challenge 2
8
9. Challenge 3
Research evidence isn’t relevant
One option (among many) for addressing challenge 3
Engage decision-makers and stakeholders periodically in priority-
setting processes and communicate the priorities to researchers
• Long-term requirements for data-collection systems and for
new primary research (e.g., Listening for Direction)
• Medium-term term requirements for systematic reviews (e.g.,
3ie)
• Short-term requirements for ‘evidence briefs’ (e.g., EVIPNet
Cameroon)
Addressing Challenge 3
9
10. Challenge 4
Research evidence isn’t easy to use
Challenge 4a
Research evidence isn’t communicated effectively
(i.e., decision-makers and stakeholders hear noise instead of
music)
Two options (among many) for addressing challenge 4a
Identify a high-priority issue, identify data and systematic
reviews that address different facets of the issue (problem,
options and implementation considerations), and prepare an
‘evidence brief’ to summarize the findings (e.g., EVIPNet, MHF)
Stop (incentivizing) researchers and university media offices
from publicizing the results of single studies without putting them
in the context of a systematic review (and clarifying the many
other questions that need to be answered before action is taken)
Addressing Challenge 4a
10
12. Challenge 4
Research evidence isn’t easy to use
Challenge 4b
Research evidence isn’t available when decision-makers and
stakeholders need it and in a form that they can use
Three options (among many) for addressing challenge 4b
Promote the use of ‘one-stop shops’ for synthesized research
evidence
• e.g., Cochrane Library and PubMed ‘hedges’ for ‘my health’
• e.g., Health Evidence and PubMed ‘hedges’ for ‘our health’
• e.g., Health Systems Evidence for ‘our system’
Staff a rapid-response unit (e.g., REACH Uganda, MHF)
Provide training (and tools) for decision-makers and stakeholders
about how to find and use research evidence (e.g., MHF’s Health
Systems Learning)
Addressing Challenge 4b
12
13. Challenge 4
Research evidence isn’t easy to use
Challenge 4c
Decision-makers lack mechanisms to prompt them to use
research evidence in decision-making
One option (among many) for addressing challenge 4c
Propose changes to cabinet submissions and senior
management committee briefings (and to periodic program
reviews) to prompt analysts to summarize whether and how
research evidence informed the clarification of a system
problem, the framing of options to address the problem, and the
proposed approach to implementation (e.g., Ontario’s Research
Evidence Tool)
Addressing Challenge 4c
13
14. Challenge 4
Research evidence isn’t easy to use
Challenge 4d
Decision-makers lack forums where challenges can be
discussed with stakeholders and researchers
One option (among many) for addressing challenge 4d
Plan deliberative dialogues at which pre-circulated evidence
briefs serve as the starting point for off-the-record deliberations
involving decision-makers, stakeholders and researchers
(stakeholder dialogues) or exclusively citizens (citizen panels)
(e.g., EVIPNet, MHF)... A big step beyond GOBSATT
Addressing Challenge 4d
14
15. A Potential Two-Pronged Approach
Approach 1 – What researchers and ‘knowledge brokers’ can do
Prepare evidence / citizen briefs and convene stakeholder dialogues /
citizen panels over time frames of weeks and months
Prepare rapid syntheses over time frames of days and weeks
Promote one-stop shops and provide training so decision-makers and
stakeholders can find research evidence on their own over time frames of
hours and days
Approach 2 – What decision-makers can do
Send clear signals that using research evidence is a high priority
Establish a performance requirement for staff
Establish an internal rapid-response unit
Establish a requirement to summarize whether and how research
evidence informed understanding of the problem, options and
implementation considerations before decisions are taken
15
16. What Is Needed To Do This Work
Knowledge (see the ‘summary sheet’)
Questions to ask about a problem, options and implementation
considerations
Types of research evidence needed to answer these questions
Appropriate sources of key types of research evidence
What an AMSTAR score means
Questions to ask about local applicability considerations
Difference between knowing what other states or countries are doing
(jurisdictional scans) versus knowing the results of research conducted in
other countries (research evidence)
16
17. What Is Needed To Do This Work (2)
Attitudes
Working iteratively to understand a problem, options and
implementation considerations in light of institutional constraints,
interest group pressure, values and many other types of information, as
well as ‘external’ factors such as the state of the economy
Being systematic and transparent in finding and using research
evidence as one input to the decision-making process
Finding and using the best available (i.e., highest quality, most locally
applicable, synthesized) research evidence in the time you’ve been
given
Looking first for a perfect match in the available research evidence (to
support an instrumental use) and then looking more broadly (to support
a conceptual use)
17
18. What Is Needed To Do This Work (3)
Skills (for the ‘doers’)
Clarifying a problem (and its causes), framing options to address the
problem, and identifying implementation considerations
Searching appropriate sources of research evidence
Using AMSTAR to assess the quality of a systematic review
Conducting a local applicability assessment
Commissioning research to fill gaps in research evidence
18
19. 1. What is the problem (and its causes)?
2. How did the problem come to attention and has this process influenced
the prospect of it being addressed?
3. What indicators can be used, or collected, to establish the magnitude
of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it?
4. What comparisons can be made to establish the magnitude of the
problem and to measure progress in addressing it?
5. How can a problem be framed (or described) in a way that will motivate
different groups?
Clarifying the Problem - Questions
19
20. Low rates of childhood immunization
A risk factor, disease or condition – Re-emergence of some
preventable childhood diseases, such as measles
A program, service or drug currently being used – Program coverage
rate dropped 5% in the past year and the program has not corrected
a celebrity’s assertions about safety and effectiveness
Current health system arrangements within which programs, services
and drugs are provided
• Governance arrangements – Fragmented accountability
• Financial arrangements – Refugees have to pay out-of-pocket for
immunizations for their children
• Delivery arrangements – Many children are not registered with a
primary care team that can proactively reach them
Current degree of implementation of an agreed course of action (e.g., a
policy) – Some parents are not aware of new schedule
Q1: What Is the Problem
(and its Causes)? Example 1
20
21. Many citizens do not have a primary care physician
A risk factor, disease or condition – Rising rates of chronic diseases
A program, service or drug currently being used – Many citizens do not
benefit from coordinated prevention and proactive management of
chronic diseases
Current health system arrangements within which programs, services
and drugs are provided
• Governance arrangements – No mechanism to introduce foreign
physicians without them ‘competing’ with local physicians
• Financial arrangements – Most physicians are paid on a fee-for-
service basis and can thrive even in well-served communities
• Delivery arrangements – Many physicians work in solo practices
Current degree of implementation of an agreed course of action (e.g., a
policy) – Policymakers do not enforce return-of-service agreements
signed by physicians
Q1: What Is the Problem
(and its Causes)? Example 2
21
22. Problem clarification involves
Brainstorming about a problem and its potential causes (question 1)
Searching for relevant data (questions 2 and 3) and research
evidence (questions 4 and 5) in appropriate sources (PubMed for
single studies or Health Systems Evidence for systematic reviews
related to health system arrangements)
• See the summary sheet
Iteratively clarifying the problem (and its causes) in light of the data
and research evidence found
Clarifying the Problem - Summing Up
22
23. 1. What is an appropriate set of options to address the problem?
2. What benefits are important to those who will be affected and which
benefits are likely to be achieved with each option?
3. What harms are important to those who will be affected and which
harms are likely to arise with each option?
4. What are the local costs of each option and is there local evidence
about their cost-effectiveness?
5. What adaptations might be made to any given option and might they
alter its benefits, harms and costs?
6. Which stakeholders’ views and experiences might influence the
acceptability of an option and its benefits, harms, and costs?
Framing Options - Questions
23
24. To address the problem of low rates of childhood immunization
1. Establish accountability among primary care practices for
registering all children in their catchment area and for achieving a
target immunization coverage rate (governance arrangement)
2. Remove all out-of-pocket charges for childhood immunization
(financial arrangement)
3. Undertake a mass-media campaign to correct a celebrity’s
assertions about the safety and effectiveness of childhood
immunization (program change) and to raise awareness about a
new immunization schedule (implementation strategy)
Q1: What is an Appropriate Set of
Options? Example 1
24
25. To address the problem of many citizens not having a primary care
physician
1. Increase the supply of physicians by raising medical school
enrolment (delivery arrangement)
2. Improve the distribution of physicians by enforcing return-of-service
agreements signed by physicians (implementation strategy)
3. Improve the supply and distribution of physicians by introducing
geographically restricted licences (governance arrangement)
4. Change the dominant physician-remuneration mechanism from fee-
for-service payment to capitation (financial arrangement)
Q1: What is an Appropriate Set of
Options? Example 2
25
26. What benefits are important to those who will be affected and which benefits are
likely to be achieved with each option? (Question 2)
Systematic reviews of effectiveness studies (e.g., randomized trials)
What harms are important to those who will be affected and which harms are likely
to arise with each option? (Question 3)
Systematic reviews of effectiveness studies or observational studies
What are the local costs of each option and is there local evidence about their cost-
effectiveness? (Question 4)
Local cost-effectiveness analysis
What adaptations might be made to any given option and might they alter its
benefits, harms and costs? (Question 5)
Systematic reviews of qualitative studies (process evaluations)
Which stakeholders’ views and experiences might influence the acceptability of
an option and its benefits, harms, and costs? (Question 6)
Systematic reviews of qualitative studies (e.g., acceptability studies)
Research Evidence Can Help to Respond
to the Additional Questions
26
27. Options framing involves
Brainstorming about an appropriate set of options to address a
problem (question 1)
Search for research evidence (in the Cochrane Library + PubMed,
Health Evidence + PubMed, or Health Systems Evidence) about
each option in turn
• See the summary sheet
Iteratively framing the options in light of the research evidence found
Framing Options - Summing Up
27
28. 28
Identifying Implementation
Considerations - Questions to Consider
1. Where are the potential barriers to (and facilitators of) the successful
implementation of an option? Are they at the level of
o Patients/citizens (see question 2)
o Health workers (see question 3)
o Organizations (see question 4)
o System (see question 5)
1. What strategies should be considered in order to facilitate the
necessary behavioural changes among patients/citizens?
2. What strategies should be considered in order to facilitate the
necessary behavioural changes among health workers?
3. What strategies should be considered in order to facilitate the
necessary organizational changes?
4. What strategies should be considered in order to facilitate the
necessary system changes?
29. Identifying implementation considerations involves
Brainstorming about (and searching for local data and research
evidence about) potential barriers to (and facilitators of) the
successful implementation of an option (question 1)
Searching Health Systems Evidence for research evidence about
each potential strategy in turn
• Benefits (question 2)
• Harms (question 3)
• Cost-effectiveness (question 4)
• Adaptations (question 5)
• Stakeholders’ views and experiences (question 6)
Iteratively calibrating the strategies in light of the research evidence
found
Identifying Implementation
Considerations - Summing Up
29
30. My Top Three Priorities for Action
Establish a requirement to summarize whether and how research
evidence informed understanding of the problem, options and
implementation considerations before decisions are taken
Promote training for (and the use of tools and resources by) decision-
makers and stakeholders so they can find and use the best available
data and research evidence – systematically and transparently – in the
time available
Create incentives for and communicate priorities to those who have the
knowledge, attitudes and skills to
Prepare rapid syntheses in days and weeks
Prepare evidence briefs (or citizen briefs) and convene stakeholder
dialogues (or citizen panels) in weeks and months
(and stop incentivizing researchers and university media offices to
publicize the results of single studies without clear justification)
30
31. Resources
Available on Health Systems Evidence (www.healthsystemsevidence.org)
Summary sheet on ‘finding and using research evidence’ (one page)
Hyperlinked list of SUPPORT tools (two pages)
Health Systems Evidence (four pages)
31