GP & PHCRED Conference July 2005
description
Transcript of GP & PHCRED Conference July 2005
GP & PHCRED Conference July 2005
Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute
Nicholas Glasgow
Aims
By the end of this session:• Reflected more on the nexus between evidence and
policy• Clearer about APHCRI’s focus and approach• Had opportunity to ask questions
Overview
Professor Nicholas Glasgow• Overview of the research evidence and policy
Mr Robert Wells• Research Evidence and Policy – Reflections on a career
Dr Bev Sibthorpe• Research Evidence and Policy - Case studies
Professor Nicholas Glasgow• Research Evidence and Policy – The Evidence and APHCRI’s
Response Professor Jonathan Lomas
• Commentary
Where am I?
You’re 30 metres
above the ground in a
balloon
You must be a
researcher
Yes. How
did you know?
Because what you told me is
absolutely correct but completely
useless
You must be a policy
maker
Yes, how did
you know? Because you
don’t know where you are, you
don’t know where you’re going, and
now you’re blaming me
The problem
GP & PHC Research activity
Welcome announcement by Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Christopher Pyne for continued support of PHCRED
Increasing research and evaluation activity• Growth of this conference• PHCRED activities• RACGP developments• Success in competitive grant rounds such as NHMRC
APHCRI• Primary health system level focus• Policy relevance important• Complex (non linear) relationships between evidence and policy
How do we engage with this complexity?
Use of Research Evidence by Policy Makers
Nicholas Glasgow
Method
Comprehensive search of the black and grey literature relating to research dissemination, uptake and utilisation in primary health care policy
Supplemented by personal communications with key contributors to this literature including: • Professor Jonathan Lomas at the Canadian Health
Services Research Foundation• Professor John Lavis and • Professor Nicholas Mays
Relevant systematic reviews were identified
Method
A publication was judged to be a systematic review if there were explicit statements within the paper which:• articulated the question• clearly summarised the strategy used to identify relevant
studies• indicated how the identified studies were assessed for
inclusion/exclusion• summarised and synthesized the results
Greenhalgh AT, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations: Systematic Review and Recommendations Milbank Quarterly 2004; 82: http://www.milbank.org/quarterly/8204feat.html (Accessed April 2005)
July 2005 SupplementJ Health Services Research & Policy
• Synthesizing evidence for management and policy-making
• Volume 10 Number 3 Supplement July 2005
• http://select.ingentaconnect.com/rsm/13558196/v10n3x1/contp1-1.htm
Key review before the supplement
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7:239-244h
Facilitators• Personal contact between researchers and policy makers• Timeliness and relevance of the research• Research that included a summary and clear recommendations• Good quality research• Research that confirmed current policy or endorsed self-interest• Community pressure or client demand for research• Research that included effectiveness data
Barriers• Absence of personal contact between researchers and
policy-makers• Lack of timeless or relevance of research• Mutual distrust, including perceived political naivety or
scientists and scientific naivety by policy-makers• Power and budget struggles• Poor quality research• Political instability and high turnover of policy-making
staff
A policy maker reflects on evidence and policy
Mr Robert Wells
Policy
Evidence-based Rational process Balancing of interests Long term perspective Open & accountable Objectively evaluated
Reactive Ad hoc responding to specific
interests Short term horizon Secretive Spin
Research
Systematic Methodical Accurate Objective Analytical Detailed
Curiosity driven Irrelevant Slow Technical Narrowly focussed
A researcher reflects – case studies from APHCRI
Dr Bev Sibthorpe
Key review before the supplement
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review J Health Serv Res Policy 2002; 7:239-244h
Facilitators• Personal contact between researchers and policy makers• Timeliness and relevance of the research• Research that included a summary and clear recommendations• Good quality research• Research that confirmed current policy or endorsed self-interest• Community pressure or client demand for research• Research that included effectiveness data
APHCRI’s approach
Professor Nicholas Glasgow
Overview
Getting past “two communities” What is evidence? What does “use” of evidence mean? How do systematic reviews and synthesis fit in? What does APHCRI see as an applied research
cycle? What does this mean for APHCRI's work?
Australian Government
Policy and Decision Makers
Providers of Primary Health Care services
and their organisations
Research Community
Consumers of Primary Health Care Services
and their organisations
APHCRI
Hub and Spokes
Key Stakeholders (“communities”)
Getting past “two communities”
The nature of “evidence”
“Research” and “evidence” are words that are value laden and differently understood
What is being sought is valid and reliable knowledge, and wisdom in its application
If innovations within primary health care are going to be conceived, tested and implemented there must be willingness on the part of all players to understand research and evidence through different lenses
Helpful insights will be derived from different research traditions.*
*Greenhalgh AT, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations: Systematic Review and Recommendations Milbank Quarterly 2004; 82: http://www.milbank.org/quarterly/8204feat.html (Accessed April 2005)
The nature of “use”
Direct (engineering, instrumental) use• Research feeds directly into decision making for policy and practice
Symbolic use (mobilisation of support)• to add weight to a particular policy direction• an instrument for persuasion. Findings – or simply the act of research – can be used
as a political tool and can legitimate particular courses of action or inaction Conceptual use (enlightenment)
• Even if policy makers or practitioners are blocked from using findings, research can change their understanding of a situation, provide new ways of thinking and offer insights into the strengths and weaknesses of particular courses of action. New conceptual understandings can then sometimes be used in instrumental ways.
Wider influence• influence beyond the institutions and events being studied. Evidence may be
synthesised. It might come into currency through networks of practitioners and researchers, and alter policy paradigms or belief communities
Nutley S, Davies H, Walter I. Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Cross Sector Lessons From the UK. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 9. 2002. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice; Research Unit for Research Utilisation
Systematic reviews and synthesis
Cogent argument for systematic reviews to be given greater profile as evidence of value to policy makers
There is an emerging science of systematic reviews and synthesis
*Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards Systematic Reviews That Inform Healthcare Management and Policymaking JHSRP 2005; v10 Number 3 Supplement
*Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, Osei E. Use of research to inform public policymaking Lancet 2004; 364: 1615-21
Economic assumptions
How you pay (reward) people contains incentives to do (or not do) particular things
Economists speak of the need to align incentives to ensure that that inherent incentives encourage the behaviour needed to achieve desired goals
Are producers of research evidence rewarded for addressing policy questions?
Pre Research•Priority setting/review
•Questions
• Methodologies
• Funding
• Research training (not just researchers)
Research
•Primary
•Secondary
Evaluation Adoption(Use
•Direct
•Symbolic
•Enlightenment)
Dissemination
Australian Government
Policy and Decision Makers
Providers of Primary Health Care services
and their organisations
Research Community
Consumers of Primary Health Care Services
and their organisations
APHCRI
Hub and Spokes
Key Stakeholders
Who’s question(s)?
Policy makers and decision makers in both the Commonwealth and States/Territories;
Providers of primary health care services and the various organisations with which they are linked;
Researchers; and/or Users of primary health care services and the
various organisations with which they are linked
Aim for Stream Four
“to systematically identify, review, and synthesise knowledge about primary health care organisation, funding, delivery and performance and then consider how this knowledge might be applied in the Australian context”
Seven Topic Areas
1. Chronic disease management;2. Integration, co-ordination and multidisciplinary care;3. Prevention and early intervention;4. Innovative models for comprehensive primary health care
delivery;5. Innovative models for the management of mental health in
primary health care settings;6. Older Australians and health promotion, prevention and
post-acute care; and7. Children and young Australians, health promotion and
prevention
APHCRI questions within topics
Questions of two general types • “What do we know about….?” and • “What are the possible options?”
The “What do we know about…?” questions are the focus of the systematic review and synthesis, while the “What are the possible options?” questions build on the results to develop ways forward for Australia’s primary health care system
APHCRI is interested in specific questions being addressed in each topic area, including questions about funding arrangements (existing and alternative), delivery arrangements and governance arrangements, and performance - i.e. system level questions
Why Stream Four?
This systematic processing of knowledge will provide:• A strong basis on which national primary health care policy can be
informed,• Clear insights into important knowledge gaps, and • The foundation on which APHCRI can build subsequent streams of
activity
The process for Stream Four will:• Strengthen the hub and spoke model – we mean it!• Build capacity in the policy and research communities with regard to
primary health care policy relevant research
Stream Four Workshops
Four workshops occur during Stream Four At least one CI from each group Attendance by members of the DoHA Allows
• Iteration of the questions• Reflection on the results as they start to emerge• New direction to occur• Researchers to focus on the research, policy analysts to focus on
policy analysis and both to learn more of the other
Miscommunication is real
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
Professor Lomas Comments
END