Search

Community-based primary care, such as general practice (GP) or urgent care, serves as the primary point of access to healthcare for most Australians and New Zealanders. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created significant and ongoing disruptions to primary care. Traditional research methods have contributed to gaps in understanding the experiences of primary care workers during the pandemic. This paper describes a novel research design and method that intended to capture the evolving impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers in Australia and New Zealand. Recurrent, rapid cycle surveys were fielded from May 2020 through December 2021 in Australia, and May 2020 through February 2021 in New Zealand. Rapid survey development, fielding, triangulated analysis and dissemination of results allowed close to real-time communication of relevant issues among general practice workers, researchers and policy-makers. A conceptual model is presented to support longitudinal analysis of primary care worker experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and New Zealand, and key learnings from applying this novel method are discussed. This paper will assist future research teams in development and execution of policy-relevant research in times of change and may inform further areas of interest for COVID-19 research in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sex and gender are inadequately considered in health and medical research, policy and practice, leading to preventable disparities in health and wellbeing. Several global institutions, journals, and funding bodies have developed policies and guidelines to improve the inclusion of diverse participants and consideration of sex and gender in research design and reporting and the delivery of clinical care. However, according to recent evaluations, these policies have had limited impact on the inclusion of diverse research participants, adequate reporting of sex and gender data and reducing preventable inequities in access to, and quality provision of, healthcare. In Australia, the Sex and Gender Policies in Medical Research (SGPMR) project aims to address sex and gender bias in health and medical research by (i) examining how sex and gender are currently considered in Australian research policy and practice; (ii) working with stakeholders to develop policy interventions; and (iii) understanding the wider impacts, including economic, of improved sex and gender consideration in Australian health and medical research. In this paper we describe the development of a theory of change (ToC) for the SGPMR project. The ToC evolved from a two-stage process consisting of key stakeholder interviews and a consultation event. The ToC aims to identify the pathways to impact from improved consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice, and highlight how key activities and policy levers can lead to improvements in clinical practice and health outcomes. In describing the development of the ToC, we present an entirely novel framework for outlining how sex and gender can be appropriately considered within the confines of health and medical research, policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Realising the economic potential of research institutions, including medical research institutes, represents a policy imperative for many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations. The assessment of research impact has consequently drawn increasing attention. Research impact assessment frameworks (RIAFs) provide a structure to assess research translation, but minimal research has examined whether alternative RIAFs realise the intended policy outcomes. This paper examines the objectives presented for RIAFs in light of economic imperatives to justify ongoing support for health and medical research investment, leverage productivity via commercialisation and outcome-efficiency gains in health systems, and ensure that translation and impact considerations are embedded into the research process. This paper sought to list the stated objectives for RIAFs, to identify existing frameworks and to evaluate whether the identified frameworks possessed the capabilities necessary to address the specified objectives.Methods: A scoping review of the literature to identify objectives specified for RIAFs, inform upon descriptive criteria for each objective and identify existing RIAFs. Criteria were derived for each objective. The capability for the existing RIAFs to realise the alternative objectives was evaluated based upon these criteria.Results: The collated objectives for RIAFs included accountability (top-down), transparency/accountability (bottom-up), advocacy, steering, value for money, management/learning and feedback/allocation, prospective orientation, and speed of translation. Of the 25 RIAFs identified, most satisfied objectives such as accountability and advocacy, which are largely sufficient for the first economic imperative to justify research investment. The frameworks primarily designed to optimise the speed of translation or enable the prospective orientation of research possessed qualities most likely to optimise the productive outcomes from research. However, the results show that few frameworks met the criteria for these objectives.Conclusion: It is imperative that the objective(s) for an assessment framework are explicit and that RIAFs are designed to realise these objectives. If the objectives include the capability to pro-actively drive productive research impacts, the potential for prospective orientation and a focus upon the speed of translation merits prioritisation. Frameworks designed to optimise research translation and impact, rather than simply assess impact, offer greater promise to contribute to the economic imperatives compelling their implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complex interventions, such as innovation platforms, pose challenges for evaluators. A variety of methodological approaches are often required to build a more complete and comprehensive understanding of how complex interventions work. In this paper, we outline and critically appraise a methodologically pluralist evaluation of an innovation platform to strengthen primary care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In doing so, we aim to identify lessons learned from the approach taken and add to existing literature on implementing evaluations in complex settings, such as innovation platforms. The pluralist design used four evaluation approaches-developmental evaluation, principles-focused evaluation, network analysis, and framework analysis-with differing strengths and challenges. Taken together, the multiple evaluation approaches yielded a detailed description and nuanced understanding of the formation, functioning and outcomes of the innovation platform that would be difficult to achieve with any single evaluation method. While a methodologically pluralist design may place additional pressure on logistical and analytic resources available, it enables a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that underlie complex interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recognition of the role of structural, cultural, political and social determinants of health is increasing. A key principle of each of these is self-determination, and according to the United Nations (2007), this is a right of Indigenous Peoples. For First Nations Australians, opportunities to exercise this right appear to be limited. This paper explores First Nations Australian communities' responses to reducing alcohol-related harms and improving the health and well-being of their communities, with a focus on understanding perceptions and experiences of their self-determination. It is noted that while including First Nations Australians in policies is not in and of itself self-determination, recognition of this right in the processes of developing health and alcohol policies is a critical element. This study aims to identify expert opinion on what is needed for First Nations Australians' self-determination in the development of health- and alcohol-related policy.Methods: This study used the Delphi technique to translate an expert panel's opinions into group consensus. Perspectives were sought from First Nations Australians (n = 9) and non-Indigenous Peoples (n = 11) with experience in developing, evaluating and/or advocating for alcohol interventions led by First Nations Australians. Using a web-based survey, this study employed three survey rounds to identify and then gain consensus regarding the elements required for First Nations Australians' self-determination in policy development.Results: Twenty panellists (n = 9 First Nations Australian) participated in at least one of the three surveys. Following the qualitative round 1 survey, six main themes, 60 subthemes and six examples of policy were identified for ranking in round 2. In round 2, consensus was reached with 67% of elements (n = 40/60). Elements that did not reach consensus were repeated in round 3, with additional elements (n = 5). Overall, consensus was reached on two thirds of elements (66%, n = 43/65).Conclusions: Self-determination is complex, with different meaning in each context. Despite some evidence of self-determination, systemic change in many areas is needed, including in government. This study has identified a starting point, with the identification of elements and structural changes necessary to facilitate First Nations Australian community-led policy development approaches, which are vital to ensuring self-determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining "what" to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines.Methods: The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system.Results: The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation-practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations.Conclusion: It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence-practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships - often called academic health science centres - have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres.Methods: This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites.Results: RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations.Conclusions: The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of epidemiological research in policy and practice is suboptimal, contributing to significant preventable morbidity and mortality. Barriers to the use of research evidence in policy include lack of research–policy engagement, lack of policy-relevant research, differences in policymaker and researcher practice norms, time constraints, difficulties in coordination, and divergent languages and reward systems. Approach and outcomes: In order to increase policy-relevant research and research uptake, we developed the output-orientated policy engagement (OOPE) model, in Australia. It integrates a foundational approach to engagement with cycles of specific activity focused around selected research outputs. Foundational elements include measures to increase recognition and valuing of policymaker expertise, emphasis on policy uptake, policy awareness of the research group's work, regular policy engagement and policy-relevant capacity-building. Specific activities include (i) identification of an "output"—usually at draft stage—and program of work which are likely to be of interest to policymakers; (ii) initial engagement focusing on sharing "preview" evidence from this output, with an invitation to provide input into this and to advise on the broader program of work; and (iii) if there is sufficient interest, formation of a researcher–policy-maker partnership to shape and release the output, as well as inform the program of work. This cycle is repeated as the relationship continues and is deepened. As well as supporting policy-informed evidence generation and research-aware policymakers, the output-orientated model has been found to be beneficial in fostering the following: a pragmatic starting place for researchers, in often large and complex policy environments; purposeful and specific engagement, encouraging shared expectations; non-transactional engagement around common evidence needs, whereby researchers are not meeting with policymakers with the expectation of receiving funding; built-in translation; time and resource efficiency; relationship-building; mutual learning; policy-invested researchers and research-invested policy-makers; and tangible policy impacts. A case study outlines how the output-orientated approach supported researcher–policymaker collaboration to generate new evidence regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cardiovascular disease risk and to apply this to national guidelines. Conclusion: Output-orientated policy engagement provides a potentially useful pragmatic model to catalyse and support partnerships between researchers and policymakers, to increase the policy-relevance and application of epidemiological evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-based decision-making is an important foundation for health policy and service planning decisions, yet there remain challenges in ensuring that the many forms of available evidence are considered when decisions are being made. Mobilising knowledge for policy and practice is an emergent process, and one that is highly relational, often messy and profoundly context dependent. Systems approaches, such as dynamic simulation modelling can be used to examine both complex health issues and the context in which they are embedded, and to develop decision support tools.Objective: This paper reports on the novel use of participatory simulation modelling as a knowledge mobilisation tool in Australian real-world policy settings. We describe how this approach combined systems science methodology and some of the core elements of knowledge mobilisation best practice. We describe the strategies adopted in three case studies to address both technical and socio-political issues, and compile the experiential lessons derived. Finally, we consider the implications of these knowledge mobilisation case studies and provide evidence for the feasibility of this approach in policy development settings.Conclusion: Participatory dynamic simulation modelling builds on contemporary knowledge mobilisation approaches for health stakeholders to collaborate and explore policy and health service scenarios for priority public health topics. The participatory methods place the decision-maker at the centre of the process and embed deliberative methods and co-production of knowledge. The simulation models function as health policy and programme dynamic decision support tools that integrate diverse forms of evidence, including research evidence, expert knowledge and localised contextual information. Further research is underway to determine the impact of these methods on health service decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Localities Embracing and Accepting Diversity (LEAD) programme was established to improve the health of ethnic minority communities through the reduction of racial discrimination. Local governments in the state of Victoria, Australia, were at the forefront of LEAD implementation in collaboration with leading state and national organisations. Key aims included expanding the available evidence regarding effective anti-racism interventions and facilitating the uptake of this evidence in organisational policies and practices.Methods: One rural and one metropolitan local government areas were selected to participate in LEAD. Key informant interviews and discussions were conducted with individuals who had participated in LEAD implementation and members of LEAD governance structures. Data were also collected on programme processes and implementation, partnership formation and organisational assessments.Results: The LEAD model demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses in terms of facilitating the use of evidence in a complex, community-based health promotion initiative. Representation of implementing, funding and advisory bodies at different levels of governance enabled the input of technical advice and guidance alongside design and implementation. The representation structure assisted in ensuring the development of a programme that was acceptable to all partners and informed by the best available evidence. Simultaneous evaluation also enhanced perceived validity of the intervention, allowed for strategy correction when necessary and supported the process of double-loop organisational learning. However, due to the model's demand for simultaneous and intensive effort by various organisations, when particular elements of the intervention were not functional, there was a considerable loss of time and resources across the partner organisations. The complexity of the model also presented a challenge in ensuring clarity regarding roles, functions and the direction of the programme.Conclusions: The example of LEAD provides guidance on mechanisms to strengthen the entry of evidence into complex community-based health promotion programmes. The paper highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of the LEAD model and implications for practical collaboration between policymakers, implementers and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More than 35% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults live with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. There is a pressing need for chronic disease prevention and management among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesise a decade of contemporary evidence to understand the barriers and enablers of chronic disease prevention and management for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People with a view to developing policy and practice recommendations. Methods: We systematically searched for peer-reviewed published articles between January 2014 to March 2023 where the search was performed using subject headings and keywords related to "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples," "Chronic Disease," and "Primary Health Care". Quality assessment for all included studies was conducted using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool. The data were extracted and summarised using a conventional content analysis approach and applying strength-based approaches. Results: Database searches identified 1653 articles where 26 met inclusion criteria. Studies varied in quality, primarily reporting on 14 criteria of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool. We identified six key domains of enablers and barriers of chronic disease prevention and management programs and implied a range of policy and practice options for improvement. These include culturally acceptable and safe services, patient-provider partnerships, chronic disease workforce, primary health care service attributes, clinical care pathways, and accessibility to primary health care services. This review also identified the need to address social and cultural determinants of health, develop the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous chronic disease workforce, support multidisciplinary teams through strengthening clinical care pathways, and engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in chronic disease prevention and management program design and delivery. Conclusion: Enabling place-based partnerships to develop contextual evidence-guided strategies that align with community priorities and aspirations, with the provision of funding mechanisms and models of care through policy and practice reforms will strengthen the chronic disease prevention and management program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction. Methods: We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas. Results: Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes. Conclusions: Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Citizen science (CS) is increasingly being utilised to involve the public in public health research, but little is known about whether and how CS can address the needs of policy and practice stakeholders in health promotion and chronic disease prevention. Methods: Using a mixed methods approach we conducted an online survey (n = 83) and semi-structured interviews (n = 21) with policy and practice stakeholders across Australia to explore how CS approaches are perceived and applied in chronic disease prevention, how CS aligns with existing approaches to community engagement, and how the uptake of CS can be supported within policy and practice settings. Results: Most participants had heard of CS, and while few had experience of using CS, there was widespread support for this approach, with many seeing it as complementary to other community engagement approaches. CS was seen as providing: (a) a robust framework for engagement; (b) access to rich data; (c) opportunities for more meaningful engagement; and (d) a mutually beneficial approach for stakeholders and community members. However, stakeholders identified a need to weigh benefits against potential risks and challenges including competing organisational priorities, resourcing and expertise, data quality and rigour, governance, and engagement. Conclusions: To expand the use of CS, stakeholders identified the need for increased awareness, acceptance, and capacity for CS within public health organisations, greater access to supporting tools and technology, and evidence on processes, feasibility and impacts to enhance the visibility and legitimacy of CS approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is evidence reporting more positive outcomes from research capacity-building (RCB) programmes that include a research facilitator role. Further, it has been suggested that research facilitator roles can be a useful strategy in building the research capacity of healthcare clinicians. However, until now, little attention has been applied to identifying the characteristics of the research facilitator role and how this role contributes to clinicians' engagement with the research process. The aim of this present study is to explore the characteristics required of the research facilitator role in the educational workshop phase of an RCB programme.Methods: This qualitative study employed an inductive approach and utilized face-to-face interviews to gather data from a purposely selected cohort. Professionally transcribed responses were thematically analysed.Results: The role of the research facilitator emerged as comprising two main themes: (1) facilitating the research process and (2) engaging expert clinicians as novice researchers. Pragmatically, analysis of data led to the development of a table outlining the responsibilities, skills and attributes related to each theme. Conceptually, theme 1 encapsulates the research facilitators' skills and experience and their role as knowledge brokers and cocreators of knowledge. Theme 2 provides insight into the clinician-centric approach the research facilitators utilized to build and foster relationships and support the clinicians through their research journey.Conclusion: This study reports on the characteristics of the research facilitator role in one phase of an RCB programme in one regional health service district in Australia and explains how the role fosters clinicians' engagement with the research process. Findings from this study will inform the development of future RCB programmes, which is important considering that clinicians' increased engagement with the research process is vital for developing a sound evidence base to support decision-making in practice and leads to higher levels of skills and greater ability to perform useful research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adaptive models of healthcare delivery, such as telehealth consultations, have rapidly been adopted to ensure ongoing delivery of essential healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of how clinicians have adapted to telehealth. This study aims to explore the telehealth experiences of specialists, based at a tertiary hospital in the Hunter Region, and general practitioners (GP), including barriers, enablers and opportunities.Methods: An interpretative qualitative study involving in-depth interviews explored the telehealth experiences of specialists, based at a tertiary hospital in the Hunter Region of Australia, and GPs, including barriers, enablers and opportunities. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison.Results: Individual interviews were conducted with 10 specialists and five GPs. Key themes were identified: (1) transition to telehealth has been valuable but challenging; (2) persisting telehealth process barriers need to be addressed; (3) establishing when face-to-face consults are essential; (4) changes in workload pressures and potential for double-up; (5) essential modification of work practices; and (6) exploring what is needed going forward.Conclusions: While there is a need to rationalize and optimize health access during a pandemic, we suggest that more needs to be done to improve telehealth going forward. Our results have important policy implications. Specifically, there is a need to effectively train clinicians to competently utilize and be confident using this telehealth and to educate patients on necessary skills and etiquette. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health policy and management decisions rarely reflect research evidence. As part of a broader randomized controlled study exploring implementation science strategies we examined how allied health managers respond to two distinct recommendations and the evidence that supports them. Methods: A qualitative study nested in a larger randomized controlled trial. Allied health managers across Australia and New Zealand who were responsible for weekend allied health resource allocation decisions towards the provision of inpatient service to acute general medical and surgical wards, and subacute rehabilitation wards were eligible for inclusion. Consenting participants were randomized to (1) control group or (2) implementation group 1, which received an evidence-based policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, or (3) implementation group 2, which received the same policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions with support from a knowledge broker. As part of the trial, serial focus groups were conducted with a sample of over 80 allied health managers recruited to implementation group 2 only. A total 17 health services participated in serial focus groups according to their allocated randomization wave, over a 12-month study period. The primary outcome was participant perceptions and data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Thematic saturation was achieved. Results: Five key themes emerged: (1) Local data is more influential than external evidence; (2) How good is the evidence and does it apply to us? (3) It is difficult to change things; (4) Historically that is how we have done things; and (5) What if we get complaints? Conclusions: This study explored implementation of strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making. Results provide insight into barriers, which prevent the implementation of evidence-based practice from fully and successfully occurring, such as attitudes towards evidence, limited skills in critical appraisal, and lack of authority to promote change. In addition, strategies are needed to manage the risk of confirmation biases in decision-making processes. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12618000029291). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The field of rural health research is critical for informing health improvement in rural places but it involves researching in small teams and distributed sites that may have specific sustainability challenges. We aimed to evaluate this to inform how to sustain the field of rural health research.Methods: We conducted In-depth semi-structured interviews of 50-70 minutes with 17 rural early career researchers who were from different research sites across rural Australia. Data were thematically coded.Results: Seven sustainability challenges were noted, namely recognition, workload, networks, funding and strategic grants, organisational culture, job security, and career progression options. Rural researchers were poorly recognised for their work and researchers were not extended the same opportunities enjoyed by staff at main campuses. Unpredictable and high workloads stemmed from community demand and limited staff. Strategic grant opportunities failed to target the generalist, complex research in this field and the limited time researchers had for grant writing due to their demands within small academic teams. Limited collaboration with other sites increased dissatisfaction. In the face of strong commitment to rural 'places' and their enthusiasm for improving rural health, fixed-term contracts and limited career progression options were problematic for researchers and their families in continuing in these roles.Conclusion: A comprehensive set of strategies is needed to address the sustainability of this field, recognising its value for rural self-determination and health equity. Hubs and networks could enable more cohesively planned, collaborative research, skills sharing, senior academic supervision and career development. Targeted funding, fit to the context and purpose of this field, is urgent. Inaction may fuel regular turnover, starting after a researcher's first years, losing rich academic theoretical and contextual knowledge that is essential to address the health of rural populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems in Australia and worldwide are increasingly expected to conduct research and quality improvement activities in addition to delivering clinical care and training health professionals. This study aims to inform a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian Hospital and Health Service by developing a programme theory showing how research investment is expected to have impact.Methods: This qualitative study, representing the first phase of a larger mixed methods research impact evaluation at the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS), adopts a realist-informed design involving the development of a programme theory. Data were obtained between February and May 2019 from strategic documentation and interviews with six current and former health service executives and senior employees. Inductive themes were integrated into a conceptual framework to visually represent the programme theory.Results: Research at THHS has developed organically as the service has matured into a regional tertiary referral service serving a diverse rural and remote population across northern Queensland. Throughout this journey, individual THHS leaders often adopted a research development mantle despite disincentives arising from a performance-driven reporting and activity-based funding service context. Impact expectations from research investment at THHS were identified in the categories of enhanced research activity and capacity among clinicians, and improved clinical practice, health workforce capability and stability, and patient and population health. Seven contextual factors were identified as potential enablers or obstacles to these impact expectations and ambitions.Conclusions: By identifying both relevant impact types and key contextual factors, this study offers programme theory to inform a planned research impact evaluation at THHS. The conceptual framework may be useful in other regionally based health service settings. More broadly, there are opportunities for future research to test and refine hybrid versions of linear and realist research impact evaluation models that combine resource-intensive, theory-driven approaches with policy practicality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recognising radical shifts in the global health research (GHR) environment, participants in a 2013 deliberative dialogue called for careful consideration of equity-centred principles that should inform Canadian funding polices. This study examined the existing funding structures and policies of Canadian and international funders to inform the future design of a responsive GHR funding landscape.Methods: We used a three-pronged analytical framework to review the ideas, interests and institutions implicated in publically accessible documents relevant to GHR funding. These data included published literature and organisational documents (e.g. strategic plans, progress reports, granting policies) from Canadian and other comparator funders. We then used a deliberative approach to develop recommendations with the research team, advisors, industry informants and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) partners.Results: In Canada, major GHR funders invest an estimated CA$90 M per annum; however, the post-2008 re-organization of funding structures and policies resulted in an uncoordinated and inefficient Canadian strategy. Australia, Denmark, the European Union, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America invest proportionately more in GHR than Canada. Each of these countries has a national strategic plan for global health, some of which have dedicated benchmarks for GHR funding and policy to allow funds to be held by partners outside of Canada. Key constraints to equitable GHR funding included (1) funding policies that restrict financial and cost burden aspects of partnering for GHR in LMICs; and (2) challenges associated with the development of effective governance mechanisms. There were, however, some Canadian innovations in funding research that demonstrated both unconventional and equitable approaches to supporting GHR in Canada and abroad. Among the most promising were found in the International Development Research Centre and the (no longer active) Global Health Research Initiative.Conclusion: Promoting equitable GHR funding policies and practices in Canada requires cooperation and actions by multiple stakeholders, including government, funding agencies, academic institutions and researchers. Greater cooperation and collaboration among these stakeholders in the context of recent political shifts present important opportunities for advancing funding policies that enable and encourage more equitable investments in GHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic diseases are a serious and urgent problem, requiring at-scale, multi-component, multi-stakeholder action and cooperation. Despite numerous national frameworks and agenda-setting documents to coordinate prevention efforts, Australia, like many countries internationally, is yet to substantively impact the burden from chronic disease. Improved evidence on effective strategies for the prevention of chronic disease is required. This research sought to articulate a priority set of important and feasible action domains to inform future discussion and debate regarding priority areas for chronic disease prevention policy and strategy.Methods: Using concept mapping, a mixed-methods approach to making use of the best available tacit knowledge of recognised, diverse and well-experienced actors, and national actions to improve the prevention of chronic disease in Australia were identified and then mapped. Participants (ranging from 58 to 78 in the various stages of the research) included a national sample of academics, policymakers and practitioners. Data collection involved the generation and sorting of statements by participants. A series of visual representations of the data were then developed.Results: A total of 95 statements were distilled into 12 clusters for action, namely Inter-Sectoral Partnerships; Systems Perspective/Action; Governance; Roles and Responsibilities; Evidence, Feedback and Learning; Funding and Incentive; Creating Demand; Primary Prevention; Social Determinants and Equity; Healthy Environments; Food and Nutrition; and Regulation and Policy. Specific areas for more immediate national action included refocusing the health system to prevention over cure, raising the profile of public health with health decision-makers, funding policy- and practice-relevant research, improving communication about prevention, learning from both global best-practice and domestic successes and failures, increasing the focus on primary prevention, and developing a long-term prevention strategy with an explicit funding commitment.Conclusions: Preventing chronic diseases and their risk factors will require at-scale, multi-component, multi-stakeholder action and cooperation. The concept mapping procedures used in this research have enabled the synthesis of views across different stakeholders, bringing both divergent and convergent perspectives to light, and collectively creating signals for where to prioritise national action. Previous national strategies for chronic disease prevention have not collated the tacit knowledge of diverse actors in the prevention of chronic disease in this structured way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is extensive health and public health literature on the 'evidence-policy gap', exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda - should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise 'evidence-based' policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the 'co-production' of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in 'evidence-based policymaking' requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn 'where the action is', and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just 'evidence-based', choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems globally promote appropriate prescribing by healthcare providers and safe and effective medicine use by consumers. Rx for Change, a publicly available database, provides access to systematic reviews regarding best practices for prescribing and using medicines. Despite the value of the database for improving prescribing and medicine use, its use remains suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a training program for five medicine-focused organisations in Canada and Australia to facilitate the use and understanding of the Rx for Change database.Methods: Four steps were undertaken: 1) key informant interviews were completed across all organisations to understand the knowledge user perspective; 2) a directed content analysis was completed of the interview transcripts and proposed training was developed; 3) a second round of feedback on the proposed training by knowledge users was gathered; and 4) feedback was integrated to develop the final training.Results: Sixteen key informant interviews with knowledge users were conducted. Themes for training content included the scope of, navigation and strategies for using Rx for Change (generic content) and practical examples on incorporating evidence within their workplace context (tailored content). The final training consisted of an informational video, a 60-minute face-to-face workshop and two post-training reminders.Conclusions: A method of engaging knowledge users in the development of a training program to improve the use of an on-line database of systematic reviews was established and used to design training. Next steps include the delivery and evaluation of the training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations' research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations' capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).Method: We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.Results: The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).Conclusion: We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations' capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The interest and activity in measuring and reporting the impact of publicly funded health and medical research has grown rapidly in recent years. Research evaluation typically relies on researchers for much of the information for an impact assessment. However, the acceptability and feasibility of this activity among health researchers is unknown. The aim of this study was to understand the role and opinions of cancer researchers in the growing area of impact evaluation activity, to inform the logistics of a sustainable program of impact evaluation.Methods: A brief anonymous online survey was administered to 95 current and past grant recipients funded through the external grants program at Cancer Council New South Wales. Eleven survey statements were constructed with Likert responses and supplemented with two open-ended questions. The statements covered the conceptual, attitudinal and practical aspects of impact evaluation. The survey targeted researchers from the full spectrum of cancer control research classifications. Descriptive analyses obtained response frequencies and percentages.Results: Forty-five cancer researchers completed the survey (response rate 47%) and 77% were Associate Professors or Professors. Responses were polarised for questions relating to engaging with research end-users, perceived time-pressure to collate data, and pressure to produce research outputs. Some researchers emphasised that quality was an important goal over quantity and warned that collecting impact data created incentives and disincentives for researchers.Conclusion: There was mixed support and acceptance among senior cancer researchers in Australia on their perceived role and engagement with research impact activities. Sole reliance on researchers for collating and reporting impact data may be problematic. Requesting information from researchers could be minimised and confined to final reports and possible verification of externally-led evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need for paramedicine research has been recognised internationally through efforts to develop out-of-hospital research agendas in several developed countries. Australasia has a substantial paramedicine research capacity compared to the discipline internationally and is well positioned as a potential leader in the drive towards evidence-based policy and practice in paramedicine. Our objective was to draw on international experiences to identify and recommend the best methodological approach that should be employed to develop an Australasian paramedicine research agenda. A search and critical appraisal process was employed to produce an overview of the literature related to the development of paramedicine research agendas throughout the world. Based on these international experiences, and our own analysis of the Australasian context, we recommend that a mixed methods approach be used to develop an inclusive Australasian Paramedicine Research Agenda. This approach will capture the views and interests of a wide range of expert stakeholders through multiple data collection strategies, including interviews, roundtable discussions and an online Delphi consensus survey. Paramedic researchers and industry leaders have the opportunity to use this multidisciplinary process of inquiry to develop a paramedicine research agenda that will provide a framework for the development of a culture of open evaluation, innovation and improvement. This research agenda would assess the progress of paramedicine research in Australia and New Zealand, map the research capacity of the paramedicine discipline, paramedic services, universities and professional organisations, identify current strengths and opportunities, make recommendations to capitalize on opportunities, and identify research priorities. Success will depend on ensuring the participation of a representative sample of expert stakeholders, fostering an open and collaborative roundtable discussion, and adhering to a predefined approach to measure consensus on each topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past decade, Research Translation Centres (RTCs) have been established in many countries. These centres (sometimes referred to as Academic Health Science Centres) are designed to bring universities and healthcare providers together in order to accelerate the generation and translation of new evidence that is responsive to health service and community priorities. This has the potential to effectively 'flip' the traditional research and education paradigms because it requires active participation and continuous engagement with stakeholders (especially service users, the community and frontline clinicians). Although investment and expectations of RTCs are high, the literature confirms a need to better understand the processes that RTCs use to mobilise knowledge, build workforce capacity, and co-produce research with patients and the public to ensure population impact and drive healthcare improvement.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected leaders and members from select RTCs in England and Australia. Convenience sampling was utilised to identify RTCs, based on their geography, accessibility and availability. Purposive sampling and a snowballing approach were employed to recruit individual participants for interviews, which were conducted face to face or via videoconferencing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive and inductive approach. This involved two researchers comparing codes and interrogating themes that were analysed inductively against the study aims and through meetings with the research team.Results: A total of 41 participants, 22 from England and 19 from Australia were interviewed. Five major themes emerged, including (1) dissonant metrics, (2) different models of leadership, (3) public and patient involvement and research co-production, (4) workforce development and (5) barriers to collaboration.Conclusions: Participants identified the need for performance measures that capture community impact. Better aligned success metrics, enhanced leadership, strategies to partner with patients and the public, enhanced workforce development and strategies to enhance collaboration were all identified as crucial for RTCs to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews.Methods: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews.Results: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care.Conclusions: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are.Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers.Results: Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes).Conclusions: Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Event-based social media monitoring and pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) will enhance communicable disease surveillance research and systems. If linked electronically and scanned systematically, the information provided by these technologies could be mined to uncover new epidemiological patterns and associations much faster than traditional public health approaches. The benefits of earlier outbreak detection are significant, but implementation could be opposed in the absence of a social licence or if ethical and legal concerns are not addressed.Methods: A three-phase mixed-method Delphi survey with Australian policy-makers, health practitioners and lawyers (n = 44) was conducted to explore areas of consensus and disagreement over (1) key policy and practical issues raised by the introduction of novel communicable disease surveillance programmes; and (2) the most significant and likely risks from using social media content and WGS technologies in epidemiological research and outbreak investigations.Results: Panellists agreed that the integration of social media monitoring and WGS technologies into communicable disease surveillance systems raised significant issues, including impacts on personal privacy, medicolegal risks and the potential for unintended consequences. Notably, their concerns focused on how these technologies should be used, rather than how the data was collected. Panellists held that social media users should expect their posts to be monitored in the interests of public health, but using those platforms to contact identified individuals was controversial. The conditions of appropriate use of pathogen WGS in epidemiological research and investigations was also contentious. Key differences amongst participants included the necessity for consent before testing and data-linkage, thresholds for action, and the legal and ethical importance of harms to individuals and commercial entities. The erosion of public trust was seen as the most significant risk from the systematic use of these technologies.Conclusions: Enhancing communicable disease surveillance with social-media monitoring and pathogen WGS may cause controversy. The challenge is to determine and then codify how these technologies should be used such that the balance between individual risk and community benefit is widely accepted. Participants agreed that clear guidelines for appropriate use that address legal and ethical concerns need to be developed in consultation with relevant experts and the broader Australian public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state's major universities.Methods: This study applied Buxton and Hanney's Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011-2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed.Results: The BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future.Conclusions: Research impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Australia, approval by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is an important step in the implementation of new health technologies. The MSAC considers health technology assessments (HTA) when submitting a recommendation to the Minister of Health on a new technology's suitability for public funding. Despite being such a critical tool in formulating policy, there has been little scrutiny on the impact of limited evidence on the performance of a national HTA agency's mandate. We aim to determine the proportion of HTAs of orthopaedic technologies prepared for the MSAC that were supported by higher levels of evidence for effectiveness, and whether this affected the MSAC's ability to conclude on efficacy. We also investigated whether the availability of higher level evidence affected the performance of cost-effectiveness analyses.Methods: We performed a cohort study of all HTAs prepared for the MSAC from 1998 to 2017 with regards to new technologies in orthopaedic surgery.Results: We identified seven HTAs encompassing nine orthopaedic technologies for inclusion. Higher levels of evidence were available for assessing the technology's effectiveness in six out of the nine technologies. The results did not show a statistically significant relationship between the availability of higher level evidence and MSAC's ability to make a clear conclusion on the assessment of effectiveness (P = 0.5). The proportion of HTAs where a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed was significantly higher (P < 0.05) when higher levels of evidence were available for the assessment of effectiveness.Conclusions: The results indicate that there is a paucity of high quality evidence in the formulation of health policy with regards to the implementation of new orthopaedic technologies in the public healthcare system. This represents an opportunity for strong leadership from surgeons to help develop the tools needed for effective clinical decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers.Methods: This study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher's exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies.Results: Overall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment.Conclusions: This study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]