New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory Researcher Development Program 2005–07: modest investment, considerable outcomes
Helen E. Cameron A B F , Frances T. Boreland A B , Jocelyn R. Morris A , David M. Lyle A B , David A. Perkins A B , Parker J. Magin C , Melanie J. Marshall D and Nicholas A. Zwar EA Centre for Remote Health Research, Broken Hill University Department of Rural Health, PO Box 457, Broken Hill, NSW 2880, Australia.
B Centre of Excellence in Rural and Remote Primary Health Care, PO Box 457, Broken Hill, NSW 2880, Australia.
C Discipline of General Practice, University of Newcastle, Newbolds Building, University Drive, Newcastle NSW 2308, Australia.
D Research Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
E School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: hcameron@gwahs.health.nsw.gov.au
Australian Journal of Primary Health 19(1) 59-67 https://doi.org/10.1071/PY11155
Submitted: 10 August 2011 Accepted: 28 December 2011 Published: 15 February 2012
Abstract
This evaluation of the Researcher Development Program (RDP) in NSW and ACT aimed to determine whether the RDP was effective in assisting novice researchers to undertake primary health care research. In mid-2008, 47 participants of the NSW and ACT RDP during 2005–07 were invited to participate in a postal survey. The survey included questions regarding previous research training and experience, outcomes during and after participation in the program, and organisational aspects of the program. Follow-up interviews were conducted with selected participants. Interview questions covered time in the program, supervision, organisational support and placement outcomes. Thirty-seven participants responded to the survey and 23 (62%) participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. Seventy-eight per cent of survey respondents felt that the RDP helped them move from novice to a more experienced researcher with effective supervision identified by participants as a key element in determining the success of the program. Many felt that time allocation was inadequate and 20% thought their capacity to maintain their workload was adversely affected by participating. Outcomes were considerable given the modest nature of the program. Notable outcomes were that most participants published their research and presented their research at a conference. Furthermore, one-fifth of survey respondents had enrolled in higher degrees. Several interviewees reported that their research led to changes in practice. Most respondents found the RDP valuable and considered that undertaking the program increased their research knowledge.
References
Askew DA, Schluter PJ, Gunn JM (2008) Research productivity in Australian general practice: what has changed since the 1990s? The Medical Journal of Australia 189, 103–104.Atun RA (2004) ‘What are the advantages and disadvantages of restructuring a health care system to be more focused on primary care services?’ Health Evidence Network Report. (World Health Organization: Copenhagen)
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2008) ‘Report on the audit of health workforce in rural and regional Australia.’ (DoHA: Canberra)
Birden HH (2007) The researcher development program: how to extend the involvement of Australian general practitioners in research? Rural and Remote Health 7, 776 Available at http://www.rrh.org.au/publishedarticles/article_print_776.pdf [Verified 10 August 2011]
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101.
| Using thematic analysis in psychology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brett T, Sharrard R, Bower A (2006) Research capacity building in general practice: a new opportunity in Fremantle, WA. Australian Family Physician 35, 65–66.
Cooke J (2005) A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Family Practice 6, 44
| A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16253133PubMed |
Farmer EA, Pilotto L (2001) Capacity building in general practice research: not a quick fix. Australian Family Physician 30, 309
Farmer E, Weston K (2002) A conceptual model for capacity building in Australian primary health care research. Australian Family Physician 31, 1139–1142.
Hiramanek N, Bridges-Webb C (2004) How to undertake research in general practice: tips for the novice researcher. Australian Family Physician 33, 766–768.
Horton R (1999) Evidence and primary care. Lancet 353, 609–610.
| Evidence and primary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7ltleqtw%3D%3D&md5=43cd6c50da6925a383900423a596aca8CAS | 10030324PubMed |
Jones A, Burgess TA, Farmer EA, Fuller J, Stocks NP, Taylor JE, Waters RL (2003) Building research capacity: an exploratory model of GPs’ training needs and barriers to research involvement. Australian Family Physician 32, 957–960.
McAvoy BR (2005) Primary care research – what in the world is going on? The Medical Journal of Australia 183, 110–112.
McIntyre E, Brun L, Cameron H, Lyle D (2010) ‘Evaluation of the Researcher Development Program (RDP) of the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy: the Fellows’ perspective. (Primary Health Care Research & Information Service, Discipline of General Practice, Flinders University: Adelaide)
McIntyre E, Brun L, Cameron H (2011) Researcher development program of the primary health care research, evaluation and development strategy. Australian Journal of Primary Health 17, 114–121.
| Researcher development program of the primary health care research, evaluation and development strategy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21616035PubMed |
Oceania Health Consulting (2005) Evaluation of the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development Strategy. Available at http://www.phcris.org.au/phcred/reports/PHCRED%20Evaluation%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf [Verified 7 November 2011]
Ried K, Farmer EA, Weston KM (2007) Bursaries, writing grants and fellowships: a strategy to develop research capacity in primary health care. BMC Family Practice 8, 19
| Bursaries, writing grants and fellowships: a strategy to develop research capacity in primary health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17408497PubMed |
Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J (2005) Contributions of primary care to health systems and health. The Milbank Quarterly 83, 457–502.
| Contributions of primary care to health systems and health.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16202000PubMed |
Webster E, Thomas M, Ong N, Cutler L (2011) Rural Research Capacity Building Program: capacity building outcomes. Australian Journal of Primary Health 17, 107–113.
| Rural Research Capacity Building Program: capacity building outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21616034PubMed |
Zwar NA, Weller DP, McCloughlan L, Traynor V (2006) Supporting research in primary care: are practice-based research networks the missing link? The Medical Journal of Australia 185, 110–113.
