Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Research Transfer (research + transfer)
Selected AbstractsApplying a ,stages of change' model to enhance a traditional evaluation of a research transfer courseJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 4 2003Leslie L. Buckley MD MPH Abstract The aim of this study was to utilize an evaluation tool based on Prochaska's model of change in order to assess behaviour change as part of an evaluation process for a research transfer training programme (RTTP). The RTTP was a training programme offered to scientists in a psychiatry department and research institute to gain skills in research transfer. In addition to a traditional course evaluation framework evaluating overall satisfaction with the course and whether or not learning objectives were met, an additional ,stages of change' evaluation tool designed to assess change along a continuum was utilized. This instrument measured change in participants' attitudes, intentions and actions with respect to research transfer practice and consisted of a 12-question survey completed by participants prior to taking the course and 3 months post-course. In two out of the three categories, attitudes and intention to practice, there was positive change from pre- to post-course (P < 0.05). Although there was a trend of increased RT-related action, this was less robust and did not reach significance. For the RTTP transfer course, a ,stages of change' model of evaluation provided an enhanced understanding by showing changes in participants that would otherwise have been overlooked if only changes in RT behaviour were measured. Additionally, evaluating along a change continuum specifically identifies areas for improvement in future courses. The instrument developed for this study could also be used as a pre-course, participant needs assessment to tailor a course to the change needs of participants. Finally, this ,stages of change' approach provides insight into where barriers to change may exist for research transfer action. [source] The Critical Care Research Network: a partnership in community-based research and research transferJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 1 2000.FRCPC, MSc(Epid), Sean P. Keenan MD The objectives of this study were to present a short history of the Critical Care Research Network (CCR-Net), describe its approach to health services research and to summarize completed and current research projects. In doing this, we explored the question is this research network accomplishing its goals? We reviewed the medical literature to identify studies on similar types of Networks and also the evidence supporting the methodology used by CCR-Net to conduct research using MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, CINAHL and the keywords network and health care or healthcare, benchmarking and health care or healthcare, and research transfer or research utilization. We also reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved articles and our personal files. In addition, we summarized the results of studies conducted by CCR-Net and outlined those currently in progress. A review of the literature identified studies on two similar networks that appeared to be succeeding. In addition, the literature was also supportive of the general process used by CCR-Net, although the level of evidence varied. Finally, the studies conducted to date within CCR-Net follow the suggested methodology. At the time of this preliminary communication CCR-Net appears to have adopted a valid approach to health services research within the area of Critical Care Medicine. Further direct evidence is required and appropriate studies are planned. [source] Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 6 2001Sangeeta Shah Aims: In 1987, the Public Health Research and Development Committee (PHRDC) was established by the NHMRC as one mechanism to fund public health research in Australia. In 1993, it awarded 32 new and 31 continuing project grants. Given increasing interest in research accountability in Australia, we designed an audit to determine outcomes from this investment. We also explored grant recipients' views about sources of research funding and strategies to enhance research dissemination. Method: Self-administered survey, July 1999. Main results: We obtained a 69% response fraction. The majority of projects already had been completed with peer-reviewed articles the most common outputs. More than half (58%) of respondents ,strongly agreed' or 'agreed' that their research had influenced policy to improve public health and 69% that it had influenced practice. Study design was significantly associated with peer-reviewed output, whether self-reported (p=0.002) or corroborated by us (p=0.004). With respect to research funding, significantly more agreed that the NHMRC should enhance program grants for public health research than mechanisms through the Strategic Research Development Committee (p=0.013). The most highly rated strategy to enhance dissemination was greater demand for research results among policy makers. Conclusion: A pleasing proportion of projects funded by PHRDC in 1993 generated peer-reviewed publications and provided research training. Recipients perceive their research has influenced policy and practice. Recipients' views about strategies to increase funding for public health research are consistent with current reforms within the NHMRC. Policy makers emerge as a key target for training in research transfer. [source] | ||||||||||