基于一般实践的研究对国家政策发展的贡献:来自爱尔兰和澳大利亚的案例研究。

J E Pirkis, G A Blashki, A W Murphy, I B Hickie, L Ciechomski
{"title":"基于一般实践的研究对国家政策发展的贡献:来自爱尔兰和澳大利亚的案例研究。","authors":"J E Pirkis,&nbsp;G A Blashki,&nbsp;A W Murphy,&nbsp;I B Hickie,&nbsp;L Ciechomski","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-3-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This paper aims to describe the influence of general practice based research on the development of two specific policy initiatives, namely the Heartwatch Programme in Ireland and the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care (BOiMHC) program in Australia. A case study approach was used to explore the extent to which relevant general practice based research shaped these initiatives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both case studies, a range of factors beyond general practice based research shaped the initiative in question, including political will, the involvement of stakeholders (including key opinion leaders), and the historical context. Nonetheless, the research played an important role, and was not merely put to 'symbolic use' to support a position that had already been reached independently. Rather, both case studies provide examples of 'instrumental use': in the case of Heartwatch, the research was considered early in the piece; in the case of the BOiMHC program, it had a specific impact on the detail of the components of the initiative.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>General practice based research can influence policy-making and planning processes by strengthening the foundation of evidence upon which they draw. This influence will not occur in a vacuum, however, and general practice researchers can maximise the likelihood of their work being 'picked up' in policy if they consider the principles underpinning knowledge transfer.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"3 ","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-3-4","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The contribution of general practice based research to the development of national policy: case studies from Ireland and Australia.\",\"authors\":\"J E Pirkis,&nbsp;G A Blashki,&nbsp;A W Murphy,&nbsp;I B Hickie,&nbsp;L Ciechomski\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1743-8462-3-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This paper aims to describe the influence of general practice based research on the development of two specific policy initiatives, namely the Heartwatch Programme in Ireland and the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care (BOiMHC) program in Australia. A case study approach was used to explore the extent to which relevant general practice based research shaped these initiatives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both case studies, a range of factors beyond general practice based research shaped the initiative in question, including political will, the involvement of stakeholders (including key opinion leaders), and the historical context. Nonetheless, the research played an important role, and was not merely put to 'symbolic use' to support a position that had already been reached independently. Rather, both case studies provide examples of 'instrumental use': in the case of Heartwatch, the research was considered early in the piece; in the case of the BOiMHC program, it had a specific impact on the detail of the components of the initiative.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>General practice based research can influence policy-making and planning processes by strengthening the foundation of evidence upon which they draw. This influence will not occur in a vacuum, however, and general practice researchers can maximise the likelihood of their work being 'picked up' in policy if they consider the principles underpinning knowledge transfer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-3-4\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-3-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-3-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本文旨在描述基于全科实践的研究对两项具体政策举措的发展的影响,即爱尔兰的心脏观察计划和澳大利亚的精神卫生保健更好的结果(BOiMHC)计划。一个案例研究方法被用来探讨在何种程度上相关的一般实践为基础的研究塑造了这些举措。结果:在这两个案例研究中,除了基于一般实践的研究之外,还有一系列因素影响了所讨论的倡议,包括政治意愿、利益相关者(包括关键意见领袖)的参与和历史背景。尽管如此,这项研究还是发挥了重要的作用,而不仅仅是“象征性地使用”来支持一个已经独立达成的立场。相反,这两个案例研究都提供了“工具使用”的例子:在《守望心脏》的案例中,研究是在文章的早期考虑的;就BOiMHC方案而言,它对倡议组成部分的细节产生了具体影响。结论:基于全科实践的研究可以通过加强所依据的证据基础来影响决策和规划过程。然而,这种影响不会在真空中发生,如果全科医生考虑到支持知识转移的原则,他们可以最大限度地提高他们的工作在政策中被“采纳”的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The contribution of general practice based research to the development of national policy: case studies from Ireland and Australia.

Background: This paper aims to describe the influence of general practice based research on the development of two specific policy initiatives, namely the Heartwatch Programme in Ireland and the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care (BOiMHC) program in Australia. A case study approach was used to explore the extent to which relevant general practice based research shaped these initiatives.

Results: In both case studies, a range of factors beyond general practice based research shaped the initiative in question, including political will, the involvement of stakeholders (including key opinion leaders), and the historical context. Nonetheless, the research played an important role, and was not merely put to 'symbolic use' to support a position that had already been reached independently. Rather, both case studies provide examples of 'instrumental use': in the case of Heartwatch, the research was considered early in the piece; in the case of the BOiMHC program, it had a specific impact on the detail of the components of the initiative.

Conclusion: General practice based research can influence policy-making and planning processes by strengthening the foundation of evidence upon which they draw. This influence will not occur in a vacuum, however, and general practice researchers can maximise the likelihood of their work being 'picked up' in policy if they consider the principles underpinning knowledge transfer.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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