Search

Objective: To understand health practitioners' attitudes towards the acceptability and usability of the Head to Health digital gateway., Design: Feedback surveys were completed by health care practitioners to identify experiences with and perceptions of the digital mental health gateway Head to Health. Data from the surveys were evaluated via thematic analysis., Settings and Participants: Health care practitioners working in mental health settings participated in three digital mental health workshops facilitated by Queensland University of Technology in 2018. A total of 43 participants explored key features of the Head to Health site and provided feedback via a post-workshop survey., Main Outcome Measures: Clinician feedback about usability, utility, barriers to integration and promotion of the Head to Health digital mental health gateway., Results: Practitioner feedback highlighted that although many were unaware of the website, overall perceptions were positive with 79% stating they will recommend the site to clients in the future. Thematic analysis revealed four overarching thematic headings; "utility of the Head to Health portal," "usability," "clinician recommendations" and "clinician-led" promotional strategies. Health professionals identified a number of roles they can play in assisting to promote Head to Health more widely., Conclusion: Overall Head to Health is perceived to be a quality resource of value to health practitioners. There is a need for ongoing government and clinician-led promotion of Head to Health both generally and in the rural setting. Guidelines are required on integration of digital mental health resources into clinical practice., (© 2019 National Rural Health Alliance Inc.)

While governments and academic institutions urge researchers to engage with news media, traditional academic values of public disengagement have inhibited many from giving high priority to media activity. In this interview-based study, the authors report on the views about news media engagement and strategies used by 36 peer-voted leading Australian public health researchers in 6 fields. The authors consider their views about the role and importance of media in influencing policy, their reflections on effective or ineffective media communicators, and strategies used by these researchers about how to best retain their credibility and influence while engaging with the news media. A willingness and capacity to engage with the mass media was seen as an essential attribute of influential public health researchers.

This paper reports data from semi-structured interviews on how 26 Australian civil servants, ministers and ministerial advisors find and evaluate researchers with whom they wish to consult or collaborate. Policymakers valued researchers who had credibility across the three attributes seen as contributing to trustworthiness: competence (an exemplary academic reputation complemented by pragmatism, understanding of government processes, and effective collaboration and communication skills); integrity (independence, "authenticity", and faithful reporting of research); and benevolence (commitment to the policy reform agenda). The emphases given to these assessment criteria appeared to be shaped in part by policymakers' roles and the type and phase of policy development in which they were engaged. Policymakers are encouraged to reassess their methods for engaging researchers and to maximise information flow and support in these relationships. Researchers who wish to influence policy are advised to develop relationships across the policy community, but also to engage in other complementary strategies for promoting research-informed policy, including the strategic use of mass media.

Context: Public health researchers make a limited but important contribution to policy development. Some engage with policy directly through committees, advisory boards, advocacy coalitions, ministerial briefings, intervention design consultation, and research partnerships with government, as well as by championing research-informed policy in the media. Nevertheless, the research utilization literature has paid little attention to these diverse roles and the ways that policymakers use them. This article describes how policymakers use researchers in policymaking and examines how these activities relate to models of research utilization. It also explores the extent to which policymakers' accounts of using researchers concur with the experiences of "policy-engaged" public health researchers., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-two Australian civil servants, parliamentary ministers, and ministerial advisers identified as "research-engaged" by public health researchers. We used structured and inductive coding to generate categories that we then compared with some of the major research utilization models., Findings: Policymakers were sophisticated and multifaceted users of researchers for purposes that we describe as Galvanizing Ideas, Clarification and Advice, Persuasion, and Defense. These categories overlapped but did not wholly fit with research utilization models. Despite the negative connotation, "being used" was reported as reciprocal and uncompromising, although researchers and policymakers were likely to categorize these uses differently. Policymakers countered views expressed by some researchers. That is, they sought robust dialogue and creative thinking rather than compliance, and they valued expert opinion when research was insufficient for decision making. The technical/political character of policy development shaped the ways in which researchers were used., Conclusions: Elucidating the diverse roles that public health researchers play in policymaking, and the multiple ways that policymakers use these roles, provides researchers and policymakers with a framework for negotiating and reflecting on activities that may advance the public health goals shared by both., (© 2011 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated "highly influential" Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers' ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy was seen as fundamental by some but was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research. This study may help researchers consider their own policy-related roles, strategies and relationships in the context of increasing calls for research that serves economic and/or social goals., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the views of rural practitioners concerning issues and challenges in mental health service delivery and possible solutions., Design: A qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews., Setting: Eight general practices from eight rural Queensland towns, three rural mental health services and two non-government organisations, with interviews being conducted before recent changes in government-subsidised access to allied health practitioners., Participants: A sample of 37 GPs, 19 Queensland Health mental health staff and 18 participants from community organisations., Main Outcome Measures: Analysis of qualitative themes from questions about the key mental health issues facing the town, how they might be addressed and what challenges would be faced in addressing them., Results: There was substantial consensus that there are significant problems with inter-service communication and liaison, and that improved collaboration and shared care will form a critical part of any effective solution. Differences between groups reflected differing organisational contexts and priorities, and limitations to the understanding each had of the challenges that other groups were facing., Conclusions: Improvements to mental health staffing and to access to allied health might increase the ability of GPs to meet the needs of less complex patients, but specific strategies to promote better integrated services are required to address the needs of rural and regional patients with complex mental health problems. The current study provides a baseline against which effects of recent initiatives to improve mental health care can be assessed.

Objective: The aim of this paper was to examine self-efficacy and perceived appropriateness among rural general practitioners (GPs) in regards to screening and intervention for physical, lifestyle and mental health issues., Method: Fifty GPs from 25 practices in eight rural Queensland towns completed a written survey designed for the study., Results: General practitioners rated opportunistic screening or assessment for smoking and for detection of relapse of mental disorders as the most appropriate, with even cardiovascular and diabetes risk falling behind these. Self-efficacy was highest for medical disorders for smoking assessment. It was significantly lower for alcohol, mental health issues, and addressing risks of physical disorder in people with mental disorders., Conclusions: High appropriateness ratings suggest that current strategies to boost self-efficacy of GPs in addressing mental health issues are timely.

This study examined whether supervision characteristics impacted on mental health practice and morale, and developed a new Supervision Attitude Scale (SAS). Telephone surveys were conducted with a representative sample of 272 staff from public mental health services across Queensland. Although supervision was widely received and positively rated, it had low average intensity, and assessment and training of skills was rarely incorporated. Perceived impact on practice was associated with acquisition of skills and positive attitudes to supervisors, but extent of supervision was related to impact only if it was from within the profession. Intention to resign was unrelated to extent of supervision, but was associated with positive attitudes to supervisors, accessibility, high impact, and empathy or praise in supervision sessions. The SAS had high internal consistency, and its intercorrelations were consistent with it being a measure of relationship positivity. The study supported the role of supervision in retention and in improving practice. It also highlighted supervision characteristics that might be targeted in training, and provided preliminary data on a new measure.