Creating a new investment pool for innovative health systems research
Tracey-Lea Laba A B , Anushka Patel A and Stephen Jan AA The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, PO Box M201 Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia. Email: patel@georgeinstitute.org.au; sjan@georgeinstitute.org.au
B Corresponding author. Email: tlaba@georgeinstitute.org.au
Australian Health Review 41(2) 173-175 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15230
Submitted: 10 December 2015 Accepted: 22 March 2016 Published: 14 October 2016
Abstract
Recent trends in health research funding towards ‘safe bets’ is discouraging investment into the development of health systems interventions and choking off a vital area of policy-relevant research. This paper argues that to encourage investment into innovative and perceivably riskier health systems research, researchers need to create more attractive business cases by exploring alternative approaches to the design and evaluation of health system interventions. At the same time, the creation of dedicated funding opportunities to support this work, as well as for relevant early career researchers, is needed.
References
[1] Jackson CL, Greenhalgh T. Co-creation: a new approach to optimising research impact? Med J Aust 2015; 203 283–4.| Co-creation: a new approach to optimising research impact?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26424059PubMed |
[2] Green R. Senate inquiry into Australia’s innovation system: issues paper. 2015. Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Innovation_System/Interim_Report [verified November 2015].
[3] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National Health and Medical Research Council funding facts book 2013. Canberra: NHMRC; 2014. Available at: www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/nh167 [verified November 2015].
[4] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Measuring up 2013. Canberra: NHMRC; 2013. Available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/nh164_measuring_up_2013_140218.pdf [verified November 2015].
[5] Cohen G, Schroeder J, Newson R, King L, Rychetnik L, Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S, Chapman S. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Syst 2015; 13 3
| Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25552272PubMed |
[6] Patton M. Developmental evaluation applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.
[7] Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: SAGE Publications; 2013.
[8] Dyke TM. From the NHMRC: maximising the commercial benefits of research. Med J Aust 2014; 201 628
| From the NHMRC: maximising the commercial benefits of research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Berry SM, Connor JT, Lewis RJ. The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments. JAMA 2015; 313 1619–20.
| The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25799162PubMed |
[10] Ley S. Turning medical research into commercial reality. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2015-ley145.htm [verified December 2015].
