利用证据为澳大利亚的区域初级卫生保健规划提供信息。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Alice Windle, Sara Javanparast, Toby Freeman, Fran Baum
{"title":"利用证据为澳大利亚的区域初级卫生保健规划提供信息。","authors":"Alice Windle, Sara Javanparast, Toby Freeman, Fran Baum","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01308-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Use of evidence to inform health policy and planning decisions is important to ensure effective, efficient and equitable interventions, yet there has been little examination of decentralized, regional health bodies. This study aimed to examine the extent, purposes and sources of evidence used by Australian Primary Health Networks (PHNs) to inform regional primary health care planning, and explore conceptions of, and attitudes towards evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted document analysis of all 31 PHNs' Needs Assessments, Activity Work Plans and Annual Reports, and conducted 29 interviews with key stakeholders from a sample of five PHNs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that PHNs used evidence to identify health needs to a far greater extent than to inform the planning and development of primary health care interventions. The evidence used largely consisted of quantitative data from government sources. There was very little use of evidence from research or evaluation documents. Evidence from community and other stakeholder consultation was useful for complementing quantitative data with localized knowledge but was of questionable rigour. Conceptions of evidence were generally broad. Interviewees tended to favour quantitative evidence, and the evidence that aligned with their professional background.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We recommend PHNs improve the use of intervention evidence and stakeholder engagement to inform effective, efficient and equitable local PHC initiatives. Developing more robust, transparent and standardized internal processes for evidence-informed program planning and evaluation, as well as maintaining and strengthening community and stakeholder participation in the planning process, will improve the robustness and effectiveness of planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11900053/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Alice Windle, Sara Javanparast, Toby Freeman, Fran Baum\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01308-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Use of evidence to inform health policy and planning decisions is important to ensure effective, efficient and equitable interventions, yet there has been little examination of decentralized, regional health bodies. This study aimed to examine the extent, purposes and sources of evidence used by Australian Primary Health Networks (PHNs) to inform regional primary health care planning, and explore conceptions of, and attitudes towards evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted document analysis of all 31 PHNs' Needs Assessments, Activity Work Plans and Annual Reports, and conducted 29 interviews with key stakeholders from a sample of five PHNs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that PHNs used evidence to identify health needs to a far greater extent than to inform the planning and development of primary health care interventions. The evidence used largely consisted of quantitative data from government sources. There was very little use of evidence from research or evaluation documents. Evidence from community and other stakeholder consultation was useful for complementing quantitative data with localized knowledge but was of questionable rigour. Conceptions of evidence were generally broad. Interviewees tended to favour quantitative evidence, and the evidence that aligned with their professional background.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We recommend PHNs improve the use of intervention evidence and stakeholder engagement to inform effective, efficient and equitable local PHC initiatives. Developing more robust, transparent and standardized internal processes for evidence-informed program planning and evaluation, as well as maintaining and strengthening community and stakeholder participation in the planning process, will improve the robustness and effectiveness of planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11900053/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01308-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01308-w","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

摘要

背景:利用证据为卫生政策和规划决策提供信息对于确保有效、高效和公平的干预措施非常重要,但对权力下放的区域卫生机构的审查却很少。本研究旨在检查澳大利亚初级卫生网络(phn)为区域初级卫生保健规划提供信息所使用的证据的程度、目的和来源,并探讨对证据的概念和态度。方法:对所有31家phn的需求评估、活动工作计划和年度报告进行文献分析,并对5家phn的主要利益相关者进行了29次访谈。结果:我们发现,phn使用证据来确定健康需求的程度远远大于为初级卫生保健干预措施的规划和发展提供信息。所使用的证据主要由来自政府的定量数据组成。很少使用来自研究或评估文件的证据。来自社区和其他利益攸关方咨询的证据有助于用地方性知识补充定量数据,但其严谨性值得怀疑。证据的概念通常很宽泛。受访者倾向于支持量化证据,以及与他们的专业背景相一致的证据。结论:我们建议phn改进干预证据的使用和利益相关者的参与,为有效、高效和公平的地方PHC倡议提供信息。为循证规划和评估制定更加健全、透明和标准化的内部流程,保持和加强社区和利益攸关方在规划过程中的参与,将提高规划的健稳性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.

Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.

Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.

Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.

Background: Use of evidence to inform health policy and planning decisions is important to ensure effective, efficient and equitable interventions, yet there has been little examination of decentralized, regional health bodies. This study aimed to examine the extent, purposes and sources of evidence used by Australian Primary Health Networks (PHNs) to inform regional primary health care planning, and explore conceptions of, and attitudes towards evidence.

Methods: We conducted document analysis of all 31 PHNs' Needs Assessments, Activity Work Plans and Annual Reports, and conducted 29 interviews with key stakeholders from a sample of five PHNs.

Results: We found that PHNs used evidence to identify health needs to a far greater extent than to inform the planning and development of primary health care interventions. The evidence used largely consisted of quantitative data from government sources. There was very little use of evidence from research or evaluation documents. Evidence from community and other stakeholder consultation was useful for complementing quantitative data with localized knowledge but was of questionable rigour. Conceptions of evidence were generally broad. Interviewees tended to favour quantitative evidence, and the evidence that aligned with their professional background.

Conclusions: We recommend PHNs improve the use of intervention evidence and stakeholder engagement to inform effective, efficient and equitable local PHC initiatives. Developing more robust, transparent and standardized internal processes for evidence-informed program planning and evaluation, as well as maintaining and strengthening community and stakeholder participation in the planning process, will improve the robustness and effectiveness of planning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信