A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care

被引：256

作者：

Cooke J. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Primary Care and Social Care Lead, Trent Research and Development Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DP

来源：

BMC Family Practice | / 6卷 / 1期

关键词：

Capacity Building; Research Capacity; Research Skill; Traditional Outcome; Research Capacity Building;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2296-6-44

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Building research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision-making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB). Discussion: This article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes. The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra-organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given. Summary: This paper highlights the need to identify ways of measuring RCB. It points out the limitations of current measurements that exist in the literature, and proposes a framework for measuring progress, which may form the basis of comparison of RCB activities. In this way it could contribute to establishing the effectiveness of these interventions, and establishing a knowledge base to inform the science of RCB. © 2005 Cooke; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 59 条

[1]

Muir Gray J.A., Evidence-based Healthcare. How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions, (1997)

[2]

Research and Development for a First Class Service, (2000)

[3]

Mant D., National Working Party on R&D in Primary Care. Final Report, (1997)

[4]

Strategic Review of the NHS R&D Levy (The Clarke Report), (1999)

[5]

Campbell S.M., Roland M., Bentley E., Dowell J., Hassall K., Pooley J., Price H., Research capacity in UK primary care, British Journal of General Practice, 49, pp. 967-970, (1999)

[6]

Towards a Strategy for Nursing Research and Development., (2000)

[7]

Ross F., Vernon S., Smith E., Mapping research in primary care nursing: Current activity and future priorities, NT Research, 7, pp. 46-59, (2002)

[8]

Marks L., Godfrey M., Developing Research Capacity Within the NHS: A Summary of the Evidence, (2000)

[9]

Lee M., Saunders K., Oak trees from acorns? An evaluation of local bursaries in primary care, Primary Health Care Research and Development, 5, pp. 93-95, (2004)

[10]

Bateman H., Walter F., Elliott J., What happens next? Evaluation of a scheme to support primary care practitioners with a fledgling interest in research, Family Practice, 21, pp. 83-86, (2004)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →