33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Integrating evidence into policy and sustainable disability services delivery in western New South Wales, Australia: the 'wobbly hub and double spokes' project

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Policy that supports rural allied health service delivery is important given the shortage of services outside of Australian metropolitan centres. The shortage of allied health professionals means that rural clinicians work long hours and have little peer or service support. Service delivery to rural and remote communities is further complicated because relatively small numbers of clients are dispersed over large geographic areas. The aim of this five-year multi-stage project is to generate evidence to confirm and develop evidence-based policies and to evaluate their implementation in procedures that allow a regional allied health workforce to more expeditiously respond to disability service need in regional New South Wales, Australia.

          Methods/Design

          The project consists of four inter-related stages that together constitute a full policy cycle. It uses mixed quantitative and qualitative methods, guided by key policy concerns such as: access, complexity, cost, distribution of benefits, timeliness, effectiveness, equity, policy consistency, and community and political acceptability.

          Stage 1 adopts a policy analysis approach in which existing relevant policies and related documentation will be collected and reviewed. Policy-makers and senior managers within the region and in central offices will be interviewed about issues that influence policy development and implementation.

          Stage 2 uses a mixed methods approach to collecting information from allied health professionals, clients, and carers. Focus groups and interviews will explore issues related to providing and receiving allied health services. Discrete Choice Experiments will elicit staff and client/carer preferences.

          Stage 3 synthesises Stage 1 and 2 findings with reference to the key policy issues to develop and implement policies and procedures to establish several innovative regional workforce and service provision projects.

          Stage 4 uses mixed methods to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of new or adapted policies that arise from the preceding stages.

          Discussion

          The project will provide policy makers with research evidence to support consideration of the complex balance between: (i) the equitable allocation of scarce resources; (ii) the intent of current eligibility and prioritisation policies; (iii) workforce constraints (and strengths); and (iv) the most effective, evidence-based clinical practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Mixed MNL models for discrete response

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              'Best practice' in focus group research: making sense of different views.

              The aim of this paper is to identify the broad epistemological debates which underpin conflicting statements on 'rigour' and 'good practice' in qualitative research; to relate divergences in statements of 'good practice' in focus group design made by the pre-eminent commentators on focus group methodology to these broader epistemological debates; and to stimulate further reflection on the range of possible uses for focus groups in health services research. Considerations of the analysis of focus group data are beyond the scope of this paper. Focus groups are a popular form of qualitative data collection, and may be defined as a particular form of group interview intended to exploit group dynamics. While qualitative research may be broadly characterized as concerned with exploring people's lived experiences and perspectives in context, it is a heterogeneous field incorporating many theoretical traditions. Consequently, qualitative researchers may be informed by a wide range of assumptions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology). These assumptions, whether implicit or explicit, have important consequences for claims about rigour and 'good practice' in data collection. Thus, while there is broad agreement over the general form of focus groups, statements of 'good practice' in terms of its application are varied. A close reading of texts by the two pre-eminent commentators on the practical application of focus groups identifies differences in 'best practice' focus group design related to their respective epistemological assumptions, and differences principally related to sampling techniques, composition of groups, the perceived role of group interaction and the nature of inference. Explicit consideration of the epistemological basis of divergent statements of 'best practice' in focus group design forces health services researchers to balance the demands of theory with the practicalities of conducting focus group research within complex host organisations; and encourages readers to apply appraisal criteria appropriate to the stated intentions of researchers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2012
                21 March 2012
                : 12
                : 70
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus C42, PO Box 170, Lidcombe 1825, NSW, Australia
                [2 ]School of Medicine, Building 30, Campbelltown Campus, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith 2751, NSW, Australia
                [3 ]NSW Government - Ageing, Disability & Home Care, PO Box 865, Dubbo 2830, NSW, Australia
                Article
                1472-6963-12-70
                10.1186/1472-6963-12-70
                3368922
                22436650
                5f92a95c-5b00-4ad1-b609-4f84e736dc9b
                Copyright ©2012 Veitch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 February 2012
                : 21 March 2012
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Health & Social care
                access,disability,rural,service provision,allied health,workforce,regional,policy,remote,retention

                Comments

                Comment on this article