The Experts below are selected from a list of 134664 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Simon Chapman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool
    Health Research Policy and Systems, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gillian Cohen, Jacqueline Schroeder, Robyn Newson, Lucie Rychetnik, Andrew J Milat, Adrian E Bauman, Sally Redman, Lesley King, Simon Chapman
    Abstract:

    Background There is a growing emphasis on the importance of research having demonstrable public benefit. Measurements of the impacts of research are therefore needed. We applied a modified impact assessment process that builds on best practice to 5 years (2003–2007) of intervention research funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council to determine if these studies had post-research real-world policy and practice impacts. Methods We used a mixed method sequential methodology whereby chief investigators of eligible intervention studies who completed two surveys and an interview were included in our final sample (n = 50), on which we conducted post-research impact assessments. Data from the surveys and interviews were triangulated with additional information obtained from Documentary Analysis to develop comprehensive case studies. These case studies were then summarized and the reported impacts were scored by an expert panel using criteria for four impact dimensions: corroboration; attribution, reach, and importance. Results Nineteen (38%) of the cases in our final sample were found to have had policy and practice impacts, with an even distribution of high, medium, and low impact scores. While the tool facilitated a rigorous and explicit criterion-based assessment of post-research impacts, it was not always possible to obtain evidence using Documentary Analysis to corroborate the impacts reported in chief investigator interviews. Conclusions While policy and practice is ideally informed by reviews of evidence, some intervention research can and does have real world impacts that can be attributed to single studies. We recommend impact assessments apply explicit criteria to consider the corroboration, attribution, reach, and importance of reported impacts on policy and practice. Impact assessments should also allow sufficient time between impact data collection and completion of the original research and include mechanisms to obtain end-user input to corroborate claims and reduce biases that result from seeking information from researchers only.

  • does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts testing a new impact assessment tool
    Health Research Policy and Systems, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gillian E Cohen, Jacqueline Schroeder, Robyn Newson, Lucie Rychetnik, Andrew J Milat, Sally Redman, Adrian Bauman, Lesley King, Simon Chapman
    Abstract:

    There is a growing emphasis on the importance of research having demonstrable public benefit. Measurements of the impacts of research are therefore needed. We applied a modified impact assessment process that builds on best practice to 5 years (2003–2007) of intervention research funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council to determine if these studies had post-research real-world policy and practice impacts. We used a mixed method sequential methodology whereby chief investigators of eligible intervention studies who completed two surveys and an interview were included in our final sample (n = 50), on which we conducted post-research impact assessments. Data from the surveys and interviews were triangulated with additional information obtained from Documentary Analysis to develop comprehensive case studies. These case studies were then summarized and the reported impacts were scored by an expert panel using criteria for four impact dimensions: corroboration; attribution, reach, and importance. Nineteen (38%) of the cases in our final sample were found to have had policy and practice impacts, with an even distribution of high, medium, and low impact scores. While the tool facilitated a rigorous and explicit criterion-based assessment of post-research impacts, it was not always possible to obtain evidence using Documentary Analysis to corroborate the impacts reported in chief investigator interviews. While policy and practice is ideally informed by reviews of evidence, some intervention research can and does have real world impacts that can be attributed to single studies. We recommend impact assessments apply explicit criteria to consider the corroboration, attribution, reach, and importance of reported impacts on policy and practice. Impact assessments should also allow sufficient time between impact data collection and completion of the original research and include mechanisms to obtain end-user input to corroborate claims and reduce biases that result from seeking information from researchers only.

Lucie Rychetnik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool
    Health Research Policy and Systems, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gillian Cohen, Jacqueline Schroeder, Robyn Newson, Lucie Rychetnik, Andrew J Milat, Adrian E Bauman, Sally Redman, Lesley King, Simon Chapman
    Abstract:

    Background There is a growing emphasis on the importance of research having demonstrable public benefit. Measurements of the impacts of research are therefore needed. We applied a modified impact assessment process that builds on best practice to 5 years (2003–2007) of intervention research funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council to determine if these studies had post-research real-world policy and practice impacts. Methods We used a mixed method sequential methodology whereby chief investigators of eligible intervention studies who completed two surveys and an interview were included in our final sample (n = 50), on which we conducted post-research impact assessments. Data from the surveys and interviews were triangulated with additional information obtained from Documentary Analysis to develop comprehensive case studies. These case studies were then summarized and the reported impacts were scored by an expert panel using criteria for four impact dimensions: corroboration; attribution, reach, and importance. Results Nineteen (38%) of the cases in our final sample were found to have had policy and practice impacts, with an even distribution of high, medium, and low impact scores. While the tool facilitated a rigorous and explicit criterion-based assessment of post-research impacts, it was not always possible to obtain evidence using Documentary Analysis to corroborate the impacts reported in chief investigator interviews. Conclusions While policy and practice is ideally informed by reviews of evidence, some intervention research can and does have real world impacts that can be attributed to single studies. We recommend impact assessments apply explicit criteria to consider the corroboration, attribution, reach, and importance of reported impacts on policy and practice. Impact assessments should also allow sufficient time between impact data collection and completion of the original research and include mechanisms to obtain end-user input to corroborate claims and reduce biases that result from seeking information from researchers only.

  • does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts testing a new impact assessment tool
    Health Research Policy and Systems, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gillian E Cohen, Jacqueline Schroeder, Robyn Newson, Lucie Rychetnik, Andrew J Milat, Sally Redman, Adrian Bauman, Lesley King, Simon Chapman
    Abstract:

    There is a growing emphasis on the importance of research having demonstrable public benefit. Measurements of the impacts of research are therefore needed. We applied a modified impact assessment process that builds on best practice to 5 years (2003–2007) of intervention research funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council to determine if these studies had post-research real-world policy and practice impacts. We used a mixed method sequential methodology whereby chief investigators of eligible intervention studies who completed two surveys and an interview were included in our final sample (n = 50), on which we conducted post-research impact assessments. Data from the surveys and interviews were triangulated with additional information obtained from Documentary Analysis to develop comprehensive case studies. These case studies were then summarized and the reported impacts were scored by an expert panel using criteria for four impact dimensions: corroboration; attribution, reach, and importance. Nineteen (38%) of the cases in our final sample were found to have had policy and practice impacts, with an even distribution of high, medium, and low impact scores. While the tool facilitated a rigorous and explicit criterion-based assessment of post-research impacts, it was not always possible to obtain evidence using Documentary Analysis to corroborate the impacts reported in chief investigator interviews. While policy and practice is ideally informed by reviews of evidence, some intervention research can and does have real world impacts that can be attributed to single studies. We recommend impact assessments apply explicit criteria to consider the corroboration, attribution, reach, and importance of reported impacts on policy and practice. Impact assessments should also allow sufficient time between impact data collection and completion of the original research and include mechanisms to obtain end-user input to corroborate claims and reduce biases that result from seeking information from researchers only.

Sive Bailey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Documentary Analysis of risk assessment and safety planning policies and tools in a mental health context
    International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 2016
    Co-Authors: Agnes Higgins, Louise Doyle, Jean Morrissey, Carmel Downes, Ailish Gill, Sive Bailey
    Abstract:

    Despite the articulated need for policies and processes to guide risk assessment and safety planning, limited guidance exists on the processes or procedures to be used to develop such policies, and there is no body of research that examines the quality or content of the risk-management policies developed. The aim of the present study was to analyse the policies of risk and safety management used to guide mental health nursing practice in Ireland. A Documentary Analysis was performed on 123 documents received from 22 of the 23 directors of nursing contacted. Findings from the Analysis revealed a wide variation in how risk, risk assessment, and risk management were defined. Emphasis within the risk documentation submitted was on risk related to self and others, with minimal attention paid to other types of risks. In addition, there was limited evidence of recovery-focused approaches to positive risk taking that involved service users and their families within the risk-related documentation. Many of the risk-assessment tools had not been validated, and lacked consistency or guidance in relation to how they were to be used or applied. The tick-box approach and absence of space for commentary within documentation have the potential to impact severely on the quality of information collected and documented, and subsequent clinical decision-making. Managers, and those tasked with ensuring safety and quality, need to ensure that policies and processes are, where possible, informed by best evidence and are in line with national mental health policy on recovery.

Geraldine Davis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a Documentary Analysis of the use of leadership and change theory in changing practice in early years settings
    International Journal of Research, 2012
    Co-Authors: Geraldine Davis
    Abstract:

    Early years professionals wrote about changes in their settings as part of their MA studies, and reflected on the use of theories of leadership in implementing these changes. This article describes a Documentary Analysis of the scripts produced. Initially basing the study in current knowledge of leadership and change in Early Years settings, the article justifies the use of Documentary Analysis before describing the process of Analysis of the scripts. Findings demonstrate that elements of many theories can be helpful in planning and implementing change in these settings, usefully contributing to the development of a theory of leadership and change for the early years sector. A simple model for further development is presented.

Lynne Forrest - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.