Background: Primary health care research is under pressure to be accountable to funders in terms of benefits for practice and policy. However, methods to assess the impact of primary health care research must be appropriate to use with the diverse topics, settings and approaches of this sector. This project explored the feasibility of using the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to determine the impact of a stratified random sample (n = 4) of competitively funded, primary health care research projects.
Information from the survey will guide Optometry Australia in the design of continuing professional development programs and other materials.
A motivational interviewing intervention by primary care health professionals who have undertaken a replicable training programme is feasible and effective in increasing exclusive breastfeeding and full/predominant breastfeeding at 4 months.
S The purpose of this study was to describe how one primary teacher of poor and working class rural students promoted small‐group dialogue about books and literary concepts. Specifically, we focused on how she guided the students from the beginning of a lesson in ways that later led to dialogue during a videotaped four‐day lesson sequence. We analyzed interactions of teacher‐student talk during the sequence that involved reading, talking about, and responding to mysteries. Coding involved labeling “indicators” of instructional conversation outlined by Dalton (1997), coding other features of dialogue derived from theory, such as use of encouragement and pace for purposes of increasing thinking, and coding what we called “democratic supports,” such as providing opportunities for student decision making. Findings contribute to the field's growing literature on classroom dialogue in primary‐grade classrooms in three ways. First, teacher‐fronted talk and true dialogue are not mutually exclusive; the former can be used to achieve the other. The teacher highlighted in this study, Gayle, purposefully used heavy teacher‐fronted discourse, emphasizing telling, defining, and modeling at the beginnings of her lessons, which appeared to be critical to students' eventual participation. Secondly, additional instructional patterns not often illustrated in the literature on dialogue in the classroom, such as nonevaluative responses, encouragement rather than praise, examples and suggestions, and linguistic and paralinguistic cues such as pacing of talk and hand gestures, all appeared to assist students' participation. The teacher moved from careful, planned mediated action to spontaneous, genuine responses within the dialogic episodes. Finally, this study confirms other studies which suggest that classroom culture, characterized by a problem‐solving environment, student decision making, student choice, collaborative work, and product‐driven work, affects students' participation and subsequent construction of meaning during small‐group dialogue. El propoásito de este estudio fue describir la forma en que una docente de primaria de estudiantes pobres y de clase trabajadora de un medio rural promovió, en pequeños grupos, el diálogo sobre libros y conceptos literarios. Específicamente nos centramos en la forma como guió a los estudiantes desde el comienzo de una lección, llegando más tarde hasta el diálogo durante una secuencia de cuatro días en que las lecciones fueron videograbadas. Analizamos las interacciones verbales docente‐estudiante durante la secuencia que consistió en leer, hablar y responder sobre textos de misterio. La codificación incluyó identificar los “indicadores” de conversación didáctica delineados por Dalton (1997), codificar otros rasgos del diálogo derivados de la teoría, como por ejemplo el uso de la incentivación y el respeto por los tiempos individuales, con el propósito de incrementar el pensamiento y codificar lo que llamamos “soportes democráticos” tales como proporcionar oportunidades para la toma...
BackgroundFunding for research is under pressure to be accountable in terms of benefits and translation of research findings into practice and policy. Primary health care research has considerable potential to improve health care in a wide range of settings, but little is known about the extent to which these impacts actually occur. This study examines the impact of individual primary health care research projects on policy and practice from the perspective of Chief Investigators (CIs).MethodsThe project used an online survey adapted from the Buxton and Hanney Payback Framework to collect information about the impacts that CIs expected and achieved from primary health care research projects funded by Australian national competitive grants.Results and DiscussionChief Investigators (CIs) provided information about seventeen completed projects. While no CI expected their project to have an impact in every domain of the framework used in the survey, 76% achieved at least half the impacts they expected. Sixteen projects had published and/or presented their work, 10 projects included 11 doctorate awards in their research capacity domain. All CIs expected their research to lead to further research opportunities with 11 achieving this. Ten CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for policy making but only four reported their research had influenced policy making. However 11 CIs achieved their expectation of providing information for organizational decision making and eight reported their research had influenced organizational decision making.ConclusionCIs reported that nationally funded primary health care research projects made an impact on knowledge production, staff development and further research, areas within the realm of influence of the research team and within the scope of awareness of the CIs. Some also made an impact on policy and organizational decision-making, and on localized clinical practice and service delivery. CIs reported few broader economic benefits from their research. Routine use of an instrument of this type would facilitate primary health care research funders' determination of the payback for funding of research in this sector.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.