A case study on determining and responding to health managers' priorities for research to assist health service decision making.

Abstract The Newcastle Institute of Public Health (NIPH) is a collaboration of health service and public health research groups in the Hunter Region of New South Wales, Australia which aims to promote the use of evidence in decision making. However, use of research evidence in decision making is a complex process, with many barriers and enablers described in the literature. Informed by strategies described in the literature around developing priority-driven research, NIPH researchers undertook to determine whether asking local health decision-makers about their needs for research information might lead to greater use of the resulting research evidence to inform health service management decisions. This paper describes a process used by NIPH to determine the research needs of 11 local senior health managers, our response to specific research questions, the communication of this research information, and the outcome. Aust Health Rev 2006: 30(4): 435-441 ACHIEVING SUCCESSFUL research or knowledge transfer - that is, the process where research informs policy, management or clinical practice decision making - is a critical issue in health services and public health research.1-3 Substantial research has been done concerning how best to frame, communicate and distribute research information to ensure maximum uptake and incorporation by decision makers.3-6 Strategies to facilitate this process include peer-led championship of evidence into practice.7 Lin sets out an agenda for research transfer which recognises the imperative to focus on the interests and the needs of the user of the research.8 However, researchers and decision makers have been considered by some commentators to have differing perspectives,1,9,10 so that accusations by researchers that policy or practice decisions are made in an evidence vacuum have been made, with some justification.11,12 Recognising that a gap between researchers and health service decision-makers might impede the use of evidence for health sector decision making, the Newcastle Institute of Public Health (NIPH) was established in 1998 with a structure and operational processes to maximise the potential for research and knowledge transfer. These structures and processes included being set up as a research partnership between the University of Newcastle (the only university in the Hunter Region of New South Wales) and the then Hunter Area Health Service (HAHS) (a health service providing public health care to over 500000 people).* In addition, a deliberate program of seeking to consult with end-users of research to generate research priorities was commenced, and two staff with qualifications and experience in clinical care, research and health services management and professional writing and communication were employed to assist research communication. Many NIPH research leaders were themselves the heads of their clinical departments in the HAHS. In this paper, we describe how NIPH researchers sought to determine and respond to the priorities for research information of senior health service managers in our local Area Health Service (AHS). We had four aims: to identify key areas for health services research; to have managers nominate health management questions for research; to answer the nominated research questions; and to report clear information back to the health service decision makers for their use. Methods In 2000 and 2001 we undertook a three-step process to meet our stated aims. I Identifying health service manager priorities for research Information Manager priorities were determined using personal interview, a survey and a workshop. Nine of the 11 most senior HAHS managers were interviewed, for between 30 and 60 minutes, at a location convenient to them. Managers were asked "If NIPH researchers were to seek external resources to undertake health services research, what research should we do?" One person with previous experience in health services management conducted all interviews. …