The value of health service-based research to health service organisations: a qualitative study with senior health service executives.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Angela L Todd, Nicholas Petrunoff, Michael Frommer, Don Nutbeam
{"title":"The value of health service-based research to health service organisations: a qualitative study with senior health service executives.","authors":"Angela L Todd, Nicholas Petrunoff, Michael Frommer, Don Nutbeam","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01149-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research evidence has demonstrably improved health care practices and patient outcomes. However, systemic translation of evidence into practice is far from optimal. The reasons are complex, but often because research is not well aligned with health service priorities. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of senior health service executives on two issues: (1) the alignment between local research activity and the needs and priorities of their health services, and (2) the extent to which research is or can be integrated as part of usual health care practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health leaders from four large health service organisations that are members of Sydney Health Partners (SHP), one of Australia's nationally accredited research translation centres committed to accelerating the translation of research findings into evidence-based health care. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023, and were either audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim or recorded in the interviewer field notes. A thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted by two researchers, using the framework method to identify common themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen health executives were interviewed, including chief executives, directors of medical services, nursing, allied health, research, and others in executive leadership roles. Responses to issue (1) included themes on re-balancing curiosity- and priority-driven research; providing more support for research activity within health organisations; and helping health professionals and researchers discuss researchable priorities. Responses to issue (2) included identification of elements considered essential for embedding research in health care; and the need to break down silos between research and health care, as well as within health organisations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Health service leaders value research but want more research that aligns with their needs and priorities. Discussions with researchers about those priorities may need some facilitation. Making research a more integrated part of health care will require strong and broad executive leadership, resources and infrastructure, and investing in capacity- and capability-building across health clinicians, managers and executive staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"65"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141057/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01149-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research evidence has demonstrably improved health care practices and patient outcomes. However, systemic translation of evidence into practice is far from optimal. The reasons are complex, but often because research is not well aligned with health service priorities. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of senior health service executives on two issues: (1) the alignment between local research activity and the needs and priorities of their health services, and (2) the extent to which research is or can be integrated as part of usual health care practice.

Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health leaders from four large health service organisations that are members of Sydney Health Partners (SHP), one of Australia's nationally accredited research translation centres committed to accelerating the translation of research findings into evidence-based health care. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023, and were either audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim or recorded in the interviewer field notes. A thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted by two researchers, using the framework method to identify common themes.

Results: Seventeen health executives were interviewed, including chief executives, directors of medical services, nursing, allied health, research, and others in executive leadership roles. Responses to issue (1) included themes on re-balancing curiosity- and priority-driven research; providing more support for research activity within health organisations; and helping health professionals and researchers discuss researchable priorities. Responses to issue (2) included identification of elements considered essential for embedding research in health care; and the need to break down silos between research and health care, as well as within health organisations.

Conclusions: Health service leaders value research but want more research that aligns with their needs and priorities. Discussions with researchers about those priorities may need some facilitation. Making research a more integrated part of health care will require strong and broad executive leadership, resources and infrastructure, and investing in capacity- and capability-building across health clinicians, managers and executive staff.

基于医疗服务的研究对医疗服务机构的价值:对医疗服务机构高级管理人员的定性研究。
背景:研究证据明显改善了医疗实践和患者的治疗效果。然而,将证据系统地转化为实践的工作远未达到最佳状态。原因很复杂,但往往是因为研究与医疗服务的优先事项没有很好地结合起来。本研究旨在探讨医疗服务高级管理人员在以下两个问题上的经验和观点:(1) 本地研究活动与其医疗服务的需求和优先事项之间的一致性,以及 (2) 研究在多大程度上已经或可以被整合为常规医疗实践的一部分:在这项定性研究中,我们对来自悉尼健康合作伙伴(SHP)成员的四家大型医疗服务机构的高级医疗领导者进行了半结构化访谈,悉尼健康合作伙伴是澳大利亚国家认可的研究转化中心之一,致力于加快将研究成果转化为循证医疗服务。访谈于 2022 年 11 月至 2023 年 1 月期间进行,访谈内容均已录音并逐字转录,或记录在访谈者的现场笔记中。两位研究人员对访谈数据进行了主题分析,采用框架法找出共同主题:共有 17 名医疗机构管理人员接受了访谈,其中包括首席执行官、医疗服务、护理、专职医疗、研究等部门的主管以及其他担任行政领导职务的人员。对问题(1)的回答包括:重新平衡好奇心和优先事项驱动的研究;为医疗机构内的研究活动提供更多支持;帮助医疗专业人员和研究人员讨论可研究的优先事项。对问题(2)的答复包括:确定将研究纳入医疗保健的基本要素;需要打破研究与医疗保健之间以及医疗机构内部的孤岛:结论:医疗服务机构的领导者重视研究工作,但希望开展更多符合其需求和优先事项的研究。与研究人员就这些优先事项进行讨论可能需要一些促进因素。要使研究成为医疗保健中更加综合的一部分,就需要强有力的、广泛的行政领导、资源和基础设施,并投资于临床医生、管理人员和行政人员的能力建设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信