合作审查试点项目,为政策提供信息:治疗试点炎的方法论良方?

Pim Kuipers, John S Humphreys, John Wakerman, Robert Wells, Judith Jones, Philip Entwistle
{"title":"合作审查试点项目,为政策提供信息:治疗试点炎的方法论良方?","authors":"Pim Kuipers, John S Humphreys, John Wakerman, Robert Wells, Judith Jones, Philip Entwistle","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-5-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In rural health and other health service development contexts, there is frustration with a reliance on pilot projects as a means of informing policy and service innovation. There is also an emerging recognition that existing research methods do not draw lessons from the failed sustainability that characterises many of these pilots and demonstration projects.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This article describes critical aspects of the methodology of a successful collaborative, multi-method, systematic synthesis of exemplary primary health care pilot projects in rural and remote Australia, which synthesised principles from a number of pilot projects to inform policy makers and planners. Hallmarks of the method were: the nature of the source materials for the research, the subsequent research engagement with the actual pilot projects, the extent of collaboration throughout the study with end-users from policy and planning arenas, and the attention to procedural quality.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The methodology, while time consuming, has resulted in applied, policy-relevant findings, and evidence of consideration by policy-makers.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"5 ","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503987/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collaborative review of pilot projects to inform policy: A methodological remedy for pilotitis?\",\"authors\":\"Pim Kuipers, John S Humphreys, John Wakerman, Robert Wells, Judith Jones, Philip Entwistle\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1743-8462-5-17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In rural health and other health service development contexts, there is frustration with a reliance on pilot projects as a means of informing policy and service innovation. There is also an emerging recognition that existing research methods do not draw lessons from the failed sustainability that characterises many of these pilots and demonstration projects.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This article describes critical aspects of the methodology of a successful collaborative, multi-method, systematic synthesis of exemplary primary health care pilot projects in rural and remote Australia, which synthesised principles from a number of pilot projects to inform policy makers and planners. Hallmarks of the method were: the nature of the source materials for the research, the subsequent research engagement with the actual pilot projects, the extent of collaboration throughout the study with end-users from policy and planning arenas, and the attention to procedural quality.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The methodology, while time consuming, has resulted in applied, policy-relevant findings, and evidence of consideration by policy-makers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503987/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australia and New Zealand health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-5-17\",\"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/10.1186/1743-8462-5-17","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:在农村卫生和其他卫生服务发展背景下,人们对依赖试点项目作为提供政策和服务创新信息的手段感到沮丧。人们还逐渐认识到,现有的研究方法没有从失败的可持续性中吸取经验教训,而这正是许多试点和示范项目的特点:本文介绍了对澳大利亚农村和偏远地区示范性初级医疗保健试点项目进行的一次成功的合作性、多方法、系统性综合研究的方法论的关键方面,该研究综合了多个试点项目的原则,为政策制定者和规划者提供了参考。该方法的特点是:研究原始材料的性质、随后与实际试点项目的研究接触、整个研究过程中与政策和规划领域最终用户的合作程度,以及对程序质量的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Collaborative review of pilot projects to inform policy: A methodological remedy for pilotitis?

Background: In rural health and other health service development contexts, there is frustration with a reliance on pilot projects as a means of informing policy and service innovation. There is also an emerging recognition that existing research methods do not draw lessons from the failed sustainability that characterises many of these pilots and demonstration projects.

Discussion: This article describes critical aspects of the methodology of a successful collaborative, multi-method, systematic synthesis of exemplary primary health care pilot projects in rural and remote Australia, which synthesised principles from a number of pilot projects to inform policy makers and planners. Hallmarks of the method were: the nature of the source materials for the research, the subsequent research engagement with the actual pilot projects, the extent of collaboration throughout the study with end-users from policy and planning arenas, and the attention to procedural quality.

Summary: The methodology, while time consuming, has resulted in applied, policy-relevant findings, and evidence of consideration by policy-makers.

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