Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?

BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators. METHODS: The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred. RESULTS: Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting.

Optometry Australia Scope of Practice Survey 2015.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents results from the inaugural Scope of Practice Survey of Optometry Australia members conducted in October 2015. The survey gathered information related to confidence in detecting and diagnosing key ocular conditions, grading diabetic retinopathy, prescribing scheduled medicines, access to equipment, confidence using equipment, incidence of patients requiring therapeutic management, referral practices and services provided. METHODS: The survey was developed, piloted, modified and administered to members of Optometry Australia (excluding student and retired members), who had a current email address. Results were collated and analysed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Of the 587 optometrists in clinical practice who responded, 254 (43 per cent) had therapeutic endorsement of registration. The majority of respondents practised in a major city or surrounding suburbs (63 per cent). Independent practice was the most frequently cited practice type (58 per cent). The estimated average number of patients seen in a week was 48; there was a steady decrease in the number of patients per week with increasing age, from 53 for optometrists in their 20s to 27 for optometrists aged over 70. There was very high confidence (over 93 per cent) in ability to grade diabetic retinopathy and diagnose a range of ocular conditions. Confidence in performance of more advanced techniques was higher for endorsed than non-endorsed optometrists. Approximately 12 per cent of patients required a Schedule 4 therapeutic prescription. The most frequently recommended over-the-counter medications were for dry eye for both endorsed and non-endorsed optometrists. The most frequently prescribed Schedule 4 medications were anti-inflammatories. The most challenging conditions to prescribe for were glaucoma, microbial keratitis and uveitis. Approximately one in six therapeutically endorsed optometrists reported unexpected side effects of medications they had prescribed. CONCLUSION: Information from the survey will guide Optometry Australia in the design of continuing professional development programs and other materials.

Surviving or thriving in the primary health care research workforce: the Australian experience.

Primary healthcare research strives for high-quality, priority-driven research to inform policy and practice. This relies on a robust and sustainable workforce to tackle complex problems faced in primary health care locally and globally. The current study investigated characteristics, experiences and career paths of the Australian primary healthcare research workforce. Thirty-seven former Research Higher Degree students from University Departments of General Practice and Rural Health completed a survey. Number of provisions for researchers and career path clarity were associated with job satisfaction. Motivators to stay in research included job satisfaction, research in role descriptions, and identification of problems requiring change. Barriers related to funding, time, and other work roles taking priority were identified. Comparisons were made between participants self-identifying as working in primary healthcare research ('stayers'; n=22) and those no longer part of this workforce ('leavers'; n=15). Leavers were more likely to be in permanent full-time work whereas stayers had experienced more career progression and mentoring. This study raises challenges faced by primary healthcare researchers and will inform strategies for supporting the sustainability of this workforce.

The contribution of a knowledge exchange organisation in primary healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The use of relevant quality research and evidence to inform policy and practice is complex, takes time and requires skill. Over the past 20 years, a knowledge exchange organisation (the Primary Health Care Research and Information Service [PHCRIS]) has developed, implemented and evaluated ways to accelerate the use of research and evidence to strengthen Australian primary healthcare and thereby enhance health. OBJECTIVE: This paper outlines how PHCRIS operates to accelerate the use of research and evidence in primary healthcare policy and practice. DISCUSSION: PHCRIS takes an integrated approach to accelerate the use of research and evidence in primary healthcare by sharing information, research and evidence; summarising and synthesising research; building capacity; and facilitating knowledge exchange. Resources developed to support this approach have a strong emphasis on access, quality, relevance and timeliness. The success of the approach has been achieved through respectful and effective engagement with stakeholders, extensive use of technologies and continuous quality improvement.

Australian academic primary health-care careers: a scoping survey.

This study was undertaken to provide a snapshot of the academic primary health-care workforce in Australia and to provide some insight into research capacity in academic primary health care following changes to funding for this sector. A convenience sample of individuals self-identifying as working within academic primary health care (n=405) completed an anonymous online survey. Respondents were identified from several academic primary health-care mailing lists. The survey explored workforce demographics, clarity of career pathways, career trajectories and enablers/barriers to 'getting in' and 'getting on'. A mix of early career (41%), mid-career (25%) and senior academics (35%) responded. Early career academics tended to be female and younger than mid-career and senior academics, who tended to be male and working in 'balanced' (teaching and research) roles and listing medicine as their disciplinary background. Almost three-quarters (74%) indicated career pathways were either 'completely' or 'somewhat unclear', irrespective of gender and disciplinary backgrounds. Just over half (51%) had a permanent position. Males were more likely to have permanent positions, as were those with a medical background. Less than half (43%) reported having a mentor, and of the 57% without a mentor, more than two-thirds (69%) would like one. These results suggest a lack of clarity in career paths, uncertainty in employment and a large number of temporary (contract) or casual positions represent barriers to sustainable careers in academic primary health care, especially for women who are from non-medicine backgrounds. Professional development or a mentoring program for primary health-care academics was desired and may address some of the issues identified by survey respondents.

Facilitating access to evidence: Primary Health Care Search Filter.

BACKGROUND: The evidence base developed by, and relevant to, primary health care (PHC) is rapidly increasing. With the wealth of literature available, searchers trying to find PHC-specific citations can feel overwhelmed. OBJECTIVES: Flinders Filters and the Primary Health Care Research & Information Service collaborated to develop a search filter enabling efficient and effective retrieval of relevant PHC literature. METHODS: Stage 1 involved developing a PHC Search Filter in the OvidSP Medline platform using a rigorous experimental methodology. The search filter was then translated for Web-based 'one-click searching' in PubMed during Stage 2. Stage 3 involved planning and implementing a mixed-methods evaluation. RESULTS: The search filter sensitivity was 77.0% with a post hoc relevance assessment of 78.3%. Four months after its launch, a mixed-methods study evaluated the PHC Search Filter. With 90 respondents, analysis of data from the online survey demonstrated overarching benefits, a positive response to the tool and directions for further refinement of the PHC Search Filter. DISCUSSION: Designing the PHC Search Filter followed an established method that ensures the tool offers a validated search strategy. Evaluation results suggest that the PHC Search Filter is a useful tool that is easy to navigate. Challenges for the Filter relate to access to full text articles, while challenges for the evaluation relate to the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The PHC Search Filter reduces the burden associated with literature searching, increases the value of the results that are received and provides a useful resource to improve the likelihood of incorporating relevant evidence into policy and practice.

The contribution of Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development-supported research to primary health care policy and practice.

The importance of primary health care (PHC) research is well understood yet conducting this research can be challenging. Barriers include a lack of funding, support and opportunity. In 2000 the Australian government introduced the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy to address the gap in high-quality research. One component of the strategy, the Research Capacity Building Initiative, provided funding to university departments of general practice and rural health, allowing them to expand their pool of researchers and produce more research relevant to policy and practice. This study investigates the impact of phase two of the PHCRED Strategy by analysing peer-reviewed publications from PHCRED-supported departments. Research output was recorded from 2006 to 2010 incorporating 661 publications in 212 journals. Rural departments often had fewer resources than urban departments yet demonstrated steady research contributions focusing on issues relevant to their community. Since its inception the PHCRED Strategy has enabled development of research capacity and contributed to the body of PHC knowledge. While PHC is a diverse field, reflected in the publications produced, the themes underlying much of this work were representative of current health reform and the priority areas and building blocks of the National PHC Strategy.

A survey of child care centers about breastfeeding support in Adelaide, South Australia.

BACKGROUND: Australia has high rates of breastfeeding initiation, with a consistent decline over the first year. Furthermore, there is a growing trend of maternal employment and rising numbers of children enrolled in different types of child care services, both of which can have a negative impact on breastfeeding. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence to better inform implementation of breastfeeding-friendly strategies in child care settings, this study examined breastfeeding policy and practice in child care centers in metropolitan Adelaide. METHODS: The paper reports on a survey sent to 292 child care centers in metropolitan Adelaide in 2010. The survey collected information on center location and type, number of enrolled children under age 2, and number of breastfed babies. The survey also included questions about breastfeeding facilities and support, breastfeeding policies, staff training, and barriers to and recommendations to enhance breastfeeding support in child care centers. RESULTS: Of the 62 completed returned surveys (21% response rate), 43 centers (69.4%) reported that they currently have children who receive breast milk at the center; however, in most centers, the total number of breastfed children was reported to be between 1 and 4; 76% reported that the center was supportive of exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months; and 80.6% had statements on breastfeeding as part of their food and nutrition policies or guidelines. Furthermore, 64.5% reported there was no formal or informal training for staff on breastfeeding support, but 50% reported that staff members do provide breastfeeding advice to mothers of children in their center. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some strategies in place to support breastfeeding, there are no standards on breastfeeding policies, practices, and training in child care settings. Therefore, the extent and scope of such support depend on parental request and the perceptions and attitudes of child care center staff toward breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding support in child care: an international comparison of findings from Australia and the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Many women in industrialized countries return to work while their children are infants. This is often associated with decreased breastfeeding duration or exclusivity. In order to better understand the breastfeeding support activities in childcare settings, studies were undertaken in settings with very different levels of infant mortality, breastfeeding, and breastfeeding support: Adelaide, Australia, and Wake County, North Carolina. The researchers collaborated to explore, contrast, and compare their baseline data. METHODS: Available data on breastfeeding rates and infant mortality rates were explored for the two settings. In addition, the two childcare datasets were explored for common questions, and descriptive and χ(2) analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Similarities were found between the response from childcare settings providers in Australia and the United States. Rates of having at least one breastfeeding infant (70.6% vs. 66.3%), a place to breastfeed (90.7% vs. 95%), and a refrigerator for storage (100% vs. 100%) were similar for Adelaide and Wake County, respectively. Qualitative data from Adelaide also mirrored Wake County data in that providers in neither setting were actively promoting breastfeeding. However, the Adelaide data reflected significantly higher rates of encouragement (95.3% vs. 21.7%), written policy (77.8% vs. 20.8%), resource/materials distribution (76.6% vs. 1% and 93.8% vs. 17%), and training (44.4% vs. 13.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Childcare practices may reflect the environment of support, or lack thereof, for breastfeeding in the society as a whole. The similarities and differences seen in these settings may reflect both official guidance as well as the breastfeeding environment. There is much work to be done in the United States to come up to the same level of support for breastfeeding in child care and in other programs as is seen in Australia.

Analysis of breastfeeding policies and practices in childcare centres in Adelaide, South Australia.

Breastfeeding policies and practices were analysed in childcare settings in the metropolitan area of Adelaide, South Australia. Childcare centres were purposively selected based on their geographical location, type and socioeconomic score of the area. Qualitative inquiry approach was employed by undertaking interviews with childcare centres' director or baby house coordinator to explore their perception towards breastfeeding practice and support within their centre. Breastfeeding related policy documents, where available, were also collected during the interviews to triangulate data. A total of 15 face-to-face interviews were conducted. Six childcare centres had a written policy specifically on breastfeeding support, although the technical issues of handling breastmilk were included in most centres' food and nutrition guidelines. Most participants believed that decision to breastfeed is the personal choice of parents, and hence saw the childcare centre's role as supporting parental choice whether it is breastfeeding or not. The provision of physical space to breastfeed and facilities to store the expressed breast milk were the most common practices in support of parents who had chosen to continue breastfeeding. Participants perceived mothers' work-related issues such as distance from the centre, time, and unsupportive workplace the most important barriers that led to early introduction of bottle feeding or breastfeeding cessation. Most childcare centres support breastfeeding in a more passive than active way. Breastfeeding promotion needs to be an integral part of childcare centres training, policy and practice if an increased rate of breastfeeding is to be achieved particularly amongst working mothers.

What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve?

BACKGROUND: Funding for research is under pressure to be accountable in terms of benefits and translation of research findings into practice and policy. Primary health care research has considerable potential to improve health care in a wide range of settings, but little is known about the extent to which these impacts actually occur. This study examines the impact of individual primary health care research projects on policy and practice from the perspective of Chief Investigators (CIs). METHODS: The project used an online survey adapted from the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to collect information about the impacts that CIs expected and achieved from primary health care research projects funded by Australian national competitive grants. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Chief Investigators (CIs) provided information about seventeen completed projects. While no CI expected their project to have an impact in every domain of the framework used in the survey, 76% achieved at least half the impacts they expected. Sixteen projects had published and/or presented their work, 10 projects included 11 doctorate awards in their research capacity domain. All CIs expected their research to lead to further research opportunities with 11 achieving this. Ten CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for policy making but only four reported their research had influenced policy making. However 11 CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for organizational decision making and eight reported their research had influenced organizational decision making. CONCLUSION: CIs reported that nationally funded primary health care research projects made an impact on knowledge production, staff development and further research, areas within the realm of influence of the research team and within the scope of awareness of the CIs. Some also made an impact on policy and organizational decision-making, and on localized clinical practice and service delivery. CIs reported few broader economic benefits from their research. Routine use of an instrument of this type would facilitate primary health care research funders' determination of the payback for funding of research in this sector.

Researcher development program of the primary health care research, evaluation and development strategy.

The Research Development Program (RDP) was initiated in 2004 under the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy to increase the number and range of people with knowledge and skills in primary health care research and evaluation. RDP Fellows were invited to participate in an online survey about the effect the program had on their research knowledge, attitudes and practice. The response rate was 42% (105/248). Most were female (88%) with 66% aged between 31 and 50 years. Over two-thirds (72%) were health practitioners. Activities undertaken during the RDP ranged from literature reviews, developing a research question, preparing ethics submissions, attending and presenting at conferences and seminars, preparing papers and reports, and submitting grant applications. Despite the fact that only 52% agreed that the RDP time was adequate, 94% agreed that the RDP was a valuable experience, with 89% expressing interest in undertaking further research. These results indicate that this program has had a positive effect on the RDP Fellows in terms of their knowledge about research, their attitude to research, and the way they use research in their work.

The impact of breastfeeding--translating recent evidence for practice.

BACKGROUND: Recent research is improving our understanding of how breastfeeding influences long term health and development. OBJECTIVE: This article summarises research published from 2004 to 2009 relating to breastfeeding of healthy full term infants to selected outcomes of public health relevance and community interest: intelligence quotient, anthropometry and cardiovascular health. DISCUSSION: Evidence from a large cluster randomised trial shows breastfeeding is associated with higher intelligence quotient at 6 years of age. Breastfed infants initially grow more slowly than artificially fed infants, but anthropometrical differences do not persist into childhood, suggesting other factors may have a stronger influence on anthropometry. Observational studies indicate cholesterol and blood pressure are moderately lower in adults who were breastfed in infancy, although further research is needed to confirm causality and clarify the full extent of benefit. Support of breastfeeding by general practitioners is an important health promotion strategy as even modest health benefits may have important implications at a population level.

The feasibility of determining the impact of primary health care research projects using the Payback Framework.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care research is under pressure to be accountable to funders in terms of benefits for practice and policy. However, methods to assess the impact of primary health care research must be appropriate to use with the diverse topics, settings and approaches of this sector. This project explored the feasibility of using the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to determine the impact of a stratified random sample (n = 4) of competitively funded, primary health care research projects. METHODS: The project conducted telephone interviews based on the Payback Framework with leaders of the research teams and nominated users of their research, used bibliometric methods for assessing impact through publication outputs and obtained documentary evidence of impact where possible. The purpose was to determine the effectiveness of the data collection methods and the applicability of the Payback Framework, and any other issues which arose around the assessment of impact of primary health care research. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The thirteen interviews were resource intensive to organise conduct and analyse but provided better information about impact than bibliometric analysis or documentary analysis. Bibliometric analysis of the papers published from the four projects was hampered by the inclusion of only one of the journals in major citation indexes. Document analysis provided more evidence of dissemination than of impact.The payback framework and logic model were a sound basis for assessing impact. Chief investigators and nominated users of research provided substantial information relevant to the impact categories closest to their spheres of influence and awareness, but less about the impact their research had on the wider health sector, population health or economic benefits. An additional category of impact emerged from the interviews, that of strengthening research networks which could enhance the impact of later work. The framework provided rich information about the pathways to impact, better understanding of which may enhance impact. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use the Buxton and Hanney Payback framework and logic model to determine the proximal impacts of primary health care research. Though resource intensive, telephone interviews of chief investigators and nominated users provided rich information.

How to conduct effective skill building workshops.

Skill building workshops need to be successful learning events that provide value for money. The strategies in this article are based on a review of the literature and evaluations received from workshop participants who have attended the many workshops conducted as part of the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) strategy.

Who supports breastfeeding?

'Breastfeeding is best for baby' is the view supported by many health organisations including Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). This literature review of both quantitative and qualitative studies was conducted to determine who supports women to breastfeed successfully in the current environment. Results indicated that fathers, other family members and friends can have a significant impact in supporting breastfeeding if they are positive about breastfeeding and have the skills to support breastfeeding. Health professionals are more effective in their support if their attitude to breastfeeding is positive and they have appropriate knowledge and skills to help the breastfeeding mother, something that is often lacking in their training. Peer counsellors and breastfeeding support groups are very effective but only if women access them. Employers and the community know about the benefits of breastfeeding; however, they do not provide much support for breastfeeding. For breastfeeding to be better supported, family and friends need to be more aware of the importance of breastfeeding and how to help mothers; health professionals need more effective training in supporting breastfeeding; peer counsellors and breastfeeding support groups need to be more accessible to breastfeeding women; and employers and the community need to be more breastfeeding friendly.