No abstract

No abstract

The next Australian Government will confront major challenges in the funding and delivery of health care. These challenges derive from: Changes in demography and disease patterns as the population ages, and the burden of chronic illness grows; Increasing costs of medical advances and the need to ensure that there are comprehensive, efficient and transparent processes for assessing health technologies; Problems with health workforce supply and distribution; Persistent concerns about the quality and safety of health services; Uncertainty about how best to balance public and private sectors in the provision and funding of health services; Recognition that we must invest more in the health of our children; The role of urban planning in creating healthy and sustainable communities; and Understanding that achieving equity in health, especially for Indigenous Australians, requires more than just providing health care services. The search for effective and lasting solutions will require a consultative approach to deciding the nation's priority health problems and to designing the health system that will best address them; issues of bureaucratic and fiscal responsibility can then follow.

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 Address correspondence to: Abby S. Haynes, The Sax Institute, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW 1240 Australia (email: abby.haynes@saxinstitute.org.au). The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 4, 2011 (pp. 564-598) 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.

Background and objective This study investigates health professionalsÕ reactions to patientsÕ perceptions of health issues -a littleresearched topic vital to the reform of the care of chronic illness.

HealthOne was part of a state-wide initiative to invest in new community-based facilities for collocating services. The HealthOne Mount Druitt is a virtual hub and spoke organisation established in 2006 in a socially disadvantaged part of Western Sydney based out of a new community health hub. The model is based on ‘virtual’ care planning and aims to improve coordination of care for older people with complex health needs, reduce unnecessary hospitalisations and ensure appropriate referral to community and specialist health services. General practitioner liaison nurses (GPLNs) work closely with clients as well as general practitioners (GPs) and other health care providers. Primary health care providers reported improved communication and coordination of services, and there have been lower levels of utilisation of the emergency department (ED) for patients following enrolment in the programme. HealthOne provides an example of how a virtual organisation together with highly skilled care coordinators can overcome some of the barriers to providing integrated care created by fragmented funding streams and care delivery systems.

There was a contradiction between the patients' responses to the surveys on the domains of PS and their actual experience. While the patients reported that they were satisfied with primary care centres, they frequently attended the emergency department directly. This indicated that they were unlikely to be fully satisfied with the primary healthcare centre.