Taking the pulse of the health services research community: a cross-sectional survey of research impact, barriers and support
Elizabeth A. Fradgley A J , Jon Karnon B , Della Roach A , Katherine Harding C , Laura Wilkinson-Meyers D , Catherine Chojenta E , Megan Campbell F , Melissa L. Harris E , Jacqueline Cumming G , Kim Dalziel H , Janet McDonald G , Tilley Pain I , Kirsten Smiler G and Christine L. Paul AA Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour and Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research Innovation and Translation, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. Email: della.roach@newcastle.edu.au; chris.paul@newcastle.edu.au
B School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Email: jonathan.karnon@adelaide.edu.au
C Allied Health Clinical Research Office, Level 2, 5 Arnold Street, Box Hill, Vic. 3128, Australia. Email: katherine.harding@easternhealth.org.au
D Health Systems, School of Population Health, The University of Auckland, 261 Morrin Road, St Johns, Auckland 1072, New Zealand. Email: l.wilkinson-meyers@auckland.ac.nz
E Priority Research Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. Email: catherine.chojenta@newcastle.edu.au; melissa.harris@newcastle.edu.au
F The Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia. Email: megan.campbell@qut.edu.au
G Health Services Research Centre, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. Email: jackie.cumming@vuw.ac.nz; janet.mcdonald@vuw.ac.nz; kirsten.smiler@vuw.ac.nz
H Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia. Email: kim.dalziel@unimelb.edu.au
I Allied Health Management Unit, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, PO Box 670, Townsville, Qld 4810, Australia. Email: tilley.pain@health.qld.gov.au
J Corresponding author. Email: elizabeth.fradgley@newcastle.edu.au
Australian Health Review 44(1) 160-167 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18213
Submitted: 9 October 2018 Accepted: 23 October 2018 Published: 20 February 2019
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2020 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Objective This study reports on the characteristics of individuals conducting health service research (HSR) in Australia and New Zealand, the perceived accessibility of resources for HSR, the self-reported impact of HSR projects and perceived barriers to conducting HSR.
Methods A sampling frame was compiled from funding announcements, trial registers and HSR organisation membership. Listed researchers were invited to complete online surveys. Close-ended survey items were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Goodness of fit tests determined potential associations between researcher affiliation and access to resources for HSR. Open-ended survey items were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results In all, 424 researchers participated in the study (22% response rate). Respondents held roles as health service researchers (76%), educators (34%) and health professionals (19%). Most were employed by a university (64%), and 57% held a permanent contract. Although 63% reported network support for HSR, smaller proportions reported executive (48%) or financial (26%) support. The least accessible resources were economists (52%), consumers (49%) and practice change experts (34%); researchers affiliated with health services were less likely to report access to statisticians (P < 0.001), economists (P < 0.001), librarians (P = 0.02) and practice change experts (P = 0.02) than university-affiliated researchers. Common impacts included conference presentations (94%), publication of peer-reviewed articles (87%) and health professional benefits (77%). Qualitative data emphasised barriers such as embedding research culture within services and engaging with policy makers.
Conclusions The data highlight opportunities to sustain the HSR community through dedicated funding, improved access to methodological expertise and greater engagement with end-users.
What is known about the topic? HSR faces several challenges, such as inequitable funding allocation and difficulties in quantifying the effects of HSR on changing health policy or practice.
What does this paper add? Despite a vibrant and experienced HSR community, this study highlights some key barriers to realising a greater effect on the health and well-being of Australian and New Zealand communities through HSR. These barriers include limited financial resources, methodological expertise, organisational support and opportunities to engage with potential collaborators.
What are the implications for practitioners? Funding is required to develop HSR infrastructure, support collaboration between health services and universities and combine knowledge of the system with research experience and expertise. Formal training programs for health service staff and researchers, from short courses to PhD programs, will support broader interest and involvement in HSR.
References
[1] Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.[2] Pirkis J, Goldfeld S, Peacock S, Dodson S, Haas M, Cumming J, Hall J, Boulton A. Assessing the capacity of the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand. Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2005; 2 4
| Assessing the capacity of the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15755322PubMed |
[3] Pittman P, Holve E. The health services researcher of 2020: a summit to assess the field’s workforce needs. Health Serv Res 2009; 44 2198–213.
| The health services researcher of 2020: a summit to assess the field’s workforce needs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20459583PubMed |
[4] Dobrow MJ, Costa S, Israr S, Chafe R. Mapping health services and policy research settings in Canada: following the money, the publications and the interest. Healthc Policy 2010; 6 84–98.
| 22043225PubMed |
[5] Marshall AP, Roberts S, Baker MJ, Keijzers G, Young J, Stapelberg NJC, Crilly J. Survey of research activity among multidisciplinary health professionals. Aust Health Rev 2016; 40 667–73.
| Survey of research activity among multidisciplinary health professionals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26827245PubMed |
[6] National Health and Medical Research Council. Outcomes of funding rounds. 2017. Available at: https://nhmrc.gov.au/funding/data-research/outcomes-funding-rounds [verified 29 June 2017].
[7] Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Strategic review of health and medical research. Better health through research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.
[8] Ministry of Business and Innovation and Employment, Ministry of Health. New Zealand Health Research Strategy 2017–2027. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Ministry of Health; 2017.
[9] Australian Government. Australian medical research and innovation strategy 2016–2021. 2016 Available at: https://beta.health.gov.au/resources/publications/australian-medical-research-and-innovation-strategy-2016-2021 [verified 13 December 2018].
[10] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Measuring up 2013. Canberra: NHMRC; 2013.
[11] Buykx P, Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Perkins D, Lyle D, McGrail M, Kinsman L. ‘Making evidence count’: a framework to monitor the impact of health services research. Aust J Rural Health 2012; 20 51–8.
| ‘Making evidence count’: a framework to monitor the impact of health services research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22435764PubMed |
[12] Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Res Policy Syst 2015; 13 18
| A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25884944PubMed |
[13] von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzschee PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014; 12 1495–9.
| The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25046131PubMed |
[14] Searles A, Doran C, Attia J, Knight D, Wiggers J, Deeming S, Mattes J, Webb B, Hannan S, Ling R, Edmunds K, Reeves P, Nilsson M. An approach to measuring and encouraging research translation and research impact. Health Res Policy Syst 2016; 14 60
| An approach to measuring and encouraging research translation and research impact.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27507300PubMed |
