Mind the gap: is it time to invest in embedded researchers in regional, rural and remote health services to address health outcome discrepancies for those living in rural, remote and regional areas?

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Moran ◽  
Helen Haines ◽  
Nicole Raschke ◽  
David Schmidt ◽  
Alison Koschel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcome ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Knowledge Generation ◽  
Research Capacity Building ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Remote Health ◽  
Rural And Remote Health

Research capacity building in healthcare works to generate and apply new knowledge to improve health outcomes; it creates new career pathways, improves staff satisfaction, retention and organisational performance. While there are examples of investment and research activity in rural Australia, overall, rural research remains under-reported, undervalued and under-represented in the evidence base. This is particularly so in primary care settings. This lack of contextual knowledge generation and translation perpetuates rural–metropolitan health outcome disparities. Through greater attention to and investment in building research capacity and capability in our regional, rural and remote health services, these issues may be partially addressed. It is proposed that it is time for Australia to systematically invest in rurally focussed, sustainable, embedded research capacity building.

An approach to building research capacity for health practitioners in a public health environment: an organisational perspective

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Hulcombe ◽  
Jennifer Sturgess ◽  
Tina Souvlis ◽  
Cate Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Allied Health ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Research Capacity Building ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Cultural Perspectives ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Sector Health

A unique opportunity to engage in research capacity-building strategies for health practitioners arose within public sector health services during the negotiations for an industrial agreement. A research capacity-building initiative for health practitioners that is allied health, oral health and scientist practitioners was funded and the components of this initiative are described. The initiative was implemented using a research capacity-building framework developed from a review of the literature and stakeholder consultations. The framework included leadership and governance, support to researchers and translation of evidence into practice and was contextualised to public health environments. There were several phases of implementation. An evaluation of the preliminary phase of establishing research positions and research activity was conducted and several successes of the capacity-building strategies were identified. These successes (e.g. solid partnerships with universities) are discussed, as are future concerns, such as sustainability of the initiative in a tighter fiscal context. What is known about the topic? The literature identifies strategies to increase research capacity, including grant funds and bursaries, training in research methods, regular forums and networks for support, positions for research fellows and linkages and partnerships. There is minimal clarity or discourse around the organisational strategies or proposed evaluation of such strategies to enable or support research capacity building. What does this paper add? This paper describes implementation of a research capacity-building framework developed from a unique opportunity to provide funding for research positions and grants embedded in an industrial agreement. It describes the organisational and cultural perspectives and framework to build a research culture based on this funding, in a predominantly clinical workforce. What are the implications for practitioners? Research positions for allied health, oral health and scientist practitioners funded and supported jointly by a health organisation and a university are able to influence the number and quality of research proposals developed. These disciplines in other jurisdictions may use this model of research capacity building within their particular context.

How best to measure health workforce turnover and retention: five key metrics

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J Russell ◽  
John S Humphreys ◽  
John Wakerman
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Health Workforce ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Retention Strategies ◽  
Single Measure ◽  
Worker Turnover ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Workforce Turnover ◽  
Remote Health ◽  
Rural And Remote Health

Objective. This article identifies, critically appraises and illustrates the use of five key workforce turnover and retention metrics that are well suited for use by Australian rural health workforce planners. These are crude turnover (separation) rates, stability rates, survival probabilities, median survival and Cox proportional hazard ratios. Examples of their calculation are presented using actual data obtained from payroll records in Australian rural and remote health services. Conclusion. The use of this small number of metrics as a ‘workforce measurement package’ can help overcome many of the limitations evident when a single measure is reported in isolation, by providing a more comprehensive picture of turnover and retention patterns. We suggest that health services themselves can calculate the simplest measures, whereas regional and centralised health authorities with higher levels of expertise undertake survival analysis and comparisons of compiled data. Implications. These key metrics can be used routinely to measure baseline levels of health worker turnover and retention, to quantify important determinants of turnover and retention, and importantly, to make valid comparisons. This enables areas for improvement to be better targeted using appropriate retention strategies, and changes resulting from retention interventions to be evaluated effectively. What is known about the topic? A vast array of turnover and retention metrics has been described in the literature. However, which of these are likely to be most useful for measuring Australian rural and remote health workforce turnover and retention is not well understood. What does this paper add? In recognition of the shortcomings of using single measures in isolation, this article identifies, critically appraises and illustrates the use of five key workforce turnover and retention metrics, recommending their use as a ‘package’. What are the implications for practitioners? Regular use of the identified metrics can enable health workforce planners to recognise which areas to target for improvement, devise appropriate retention strategies and evaluate changes occurring as a result of retention incentives or interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document