While there is a growing literature on how health services research can inform health policy decisions, the practical challenge is for health services researchers to develop an effective interface with health policy-making processes and to produce outputs that lead to outcomes. The experience of the Centre for Health Service Development at the University of Wollongong, Australia, is used to illustrate the issues so commonly described in the literature and to reflect on our experience of trying to remain viable while producing relevant and valid research. A case study in a specific policy area - namely, the development of case-mix classifications and information systems to inform policy and funding in the subacute and non-acute hospital and community care sectors - is used as a practical example of the research-policy interface.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DaviesHTO, NutleySM, SmithPC. What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services.Bristol: The Policy Press, 2000
2.
BlackN. A national strategy for research and development: lessons from England. Annual Review of Public Health1997; 18: 485–505
3.
CoburnAF. The role of health services research in developing state health policy. Health Affairs1998; 17: 139–151
4.
MacintyreS, ChalmersI, HortonR, SmithR. Using evidence to inform health policy: case study. BMJ2001; 322: 222–225
5.
CumminsS, MacintyreS. Food deserts,: evidence and assumption in health policy making. BMJ2002; 325: 436–438
6.
DavisP, Howden-ChapmanP. Translating research findings into health policy. Social Science & Medicine1996; 43: 865–872
7.
ElliottH, PopayJ. How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilisation and local NHS policy making. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health2000; 54: 461–468
8.
BlackN. Evidence based policy: proceed with care. BMJ2001; 323: 275–279
9.
LavisJN, RossSE, HurleyJE, HohenadelJM, StoddartGL, Woodward CA et al. Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. Milbank Quarterly2002; 80: 125–154
10.
WeissCH. The many meanings of research utilisation. Public Administration Review1979; 39: 426–431
11.
LomasJ. Connecting research and policy. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research2000; 1: 140–144
12.
FrenkJ. Balancing relevance and excellence: organizational responses to link research with decision making. Social Science & Medicine1992; 35: 1397–1404
13.
WalsheK, RundallTG. Evidence-based management: from theory to practice in health care. Milbank Quarterly2001; 79: 429–457
14.
PettigrewM, SongF, WilsonP, WrightK. Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE). International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care1999; 15: 671–678
15.
LomasJ. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Affairs2000; 19: 236–240
16.
PalmerGR, ShortSD. Health care and public policy, 3rd edn.Melbourne: Macmillan, 2000
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2000. The seventh biennial health report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Canberra: AIHW, 2000
19.
Health and Medical Research Strategic Review (Wills Inquiry).The virtuous cycle: working together for health and medical research.Canberra: NHMRC, 1998
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.The Australian coordinated care trials: final technical evaluation report on the first round of trials. Canberra
22.
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, 2001
23.
Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.Planning guidelines for the national demonstration projects in integrated mental health care.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1999
24.
National Health Data Committee.National health data dictionary, version 10.Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2001
25.
EagarK, HindleD. The national casemix education series, 2. Casemix in Australia: an overview.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1994
26.
EagarK, CromwellD, KennedyC, LeeL. Classifying sub-acute and non-acute patients: results of the NSW Casemix Area Network study. Australian Health Review1997; 20: 26–42
27.
LeeL, EagarK, SmithM. Sub-acute and non-acute casemix in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia1998; 169: S22–S25
28.
EagarK. The Australian national sub-acute and non-acute patient (AN-SNAP) casemix classification. Australian Health Review1999; 22: 180–195
29.
LowthianP, DislerP, MaS, EagarK, GreenJ, de GraaffS. The Australian national sub-acute and non-acute patient casemix classification (AN-SNAP): its application and value in a stroke rehabilitation programme. Clinical Rehabilitation2000; 14: 532–537
30.
EagarK. The Australian national sub-acute and non-acute patient (AN-SNAP) casemix classification. In: Proceedings of the Ninth National Casemix Conference, Brisbane, 1997
31.
EagarK, GordonRThe implementation of the AN-SNAP classification: issues and experiences one year on. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Casemix Conference, Darwin, 1999
32.
EagarK. Sub-acute casemix: the basis for studying rehabilitation outcomes. In: Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australasian Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sydney, 1998
33.
EagarK. National developments in palliative care classification and information systems. In: Proceedings of Innovations, Limitations and Wishlists: New Strategies for Palliative Care, Brisbane, 1998
34.
HarveyR, EagarK, CromwellD. Funding levers for public health.Wollongong: Centre for Health Service Development, 1997
35.
KleinR. From evidence-based medicine to evidence-based policy?Journal of Health Services Research & Policy2000; 5: 65–66
36.
MarosszekyJE, EagarK. The Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (AROC). In: Proceedings of Health Care in Perspective 2001, incorporating the Thirteenth National Casemix Conference, Hobart, 2001
