PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Nicholas Mays

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas Mays.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly required to describe the impact of their work, e.g. in grant proposals, project reports, press releases and research assessment exercises. Specialised impact assessment studies can be difficult to replicate and may require resources and skills not available to individual researchers. Researchers are often hard-pressed to identify and describe research impacts and ad hoc accounts do not facilitate comparison across time or projects. METHODS: The Research Impact Framework was developed by identifying potential areas of health research impact from the research impact assessment literature and based on research assessment criteria, for example, as set out by the UK Research Assessment Exercise panels. A prototype of the framework was used to guide an analysis of the impact of selected research projects at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Additional areas of impact were identified in the process and researchers also provided feedback on which descriptive categories they thought were useful and valid vis-à-vis the nature and impact of their work. RESULTS: We identified four broad areas of impact: I. Research-related impacts; II. Policy impacts; III. Service impacts: health and intersectoral and IV. Societal impacts. Within each of these areas, further descriptive categories were identified. For example, the nature of research impact on policy can be described using the following categorisation, put forward by Weiss: Instrumental use where research findings drive policy-making; Mobilisation of support where research provides support for policy proposals; Conceptual use where research influences the concepts and language of policy deliberations and Redefining/wider influence where research leads to rethinking and changing established practices and beliefs. CONCLUSION: Researchers, while initially sceptical, found that the Research Impact Framework provided prompts and descriptive categories that helped them systematically identify a range of specific and verifiable impacts related to their work (compared to ad hoc approaches they had previously used). The framework could also help researchers think through implementation strategies and identify unintended or harmful effects. The standardised structure of the framework facilitates comparison of research impacts across projects and time, which is useful from analytical, management and assessment perspectives.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Continuity through change: the rhetoric and reality of health reform in New Zealand.

New Zealand, like most other developed economies, has struggled to establish the best way of organising and delivering publicly financed health care services. Before the 1990s, hospitals and some related services were planned and provided by regionally based, locally elected health boards. This system was replaced in 1993 with a quasi-market structure in which separate organisations were responsible for the purchasing and provision of services. This in turn was replaced in 2001 by a system of locally elected boards that is remarkably similar to that which existed in the 1980s. The change to and subsequent abandonment of the quasi-market structure implies major changes to the way that health services are organised in New Zealand and suggests policy U-turns in (at least) three key areas: from cooperation to competition (and back); from integration of the roles of purchaser and provider to contractual arrangements (and back); and from local decision-making to centralised decision-making (and back). The aims of this paper are to examine the depth of system change in practice and to consider the extent to which the stated goals of reformers have disguised the degree of continuity between reform eras. We conclude that simplistic distinctions between structural approaches often fail to capture salient influences upon decision-making. New Zealand has not, in fact, been "to market and back" as the rhetoric would have us believe. Key aspects of the health system have endured throughout the reform period and these arguably have more importance for system functioning and performance than the high-level structural changes.

Health Care Reform↗
PubMed2005

Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field.

Policy-makers and managers have always used a wide range of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and the organization of services. However, they are under increasing pressure to adopt a more systematic approach to the utilization of the complex evidence base. Decision-makers must address complicated questions about the nature and significance of the problem to be addressed; the nature of proposed interventions; their differential impact; cost-effectiveness; acceptability and so on. This means that Cochrane-style reviews alone are not sufficient. Rather, they require access to syntheses of high-quality evidence that include research and non-research sources, and both qualitative and quantitative research findings. There is no single, agreed framework for synthesizing such diverse forms of evidence and many of the approaches potentially applicable to such an endeavour were devised for either qualitative or quantitative synthesis and/or for analysing primary data. This paper describes the key stages in reviewing and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence for decision-making and looks at various strategies that could offer a way forward. We identify four basic approaches: narrative (including traditional 'literature reviews' and more methodologically explicit approaches such as 'thematic analysis', 'narrative synthesis', 'realist synthesis' and 'meta-narrative mapping'), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as 'meta-ethnography' and 'qualitative cross-case analysis'), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as 'quantitative case survey' or 'content analysis') and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or 'weights' to use in quantitative synthesis). The choice of approach will be contingent on the aim of the review and nature of the available evidence, and often more than one approach will be required.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2004

Primary care trusts.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Health Facility Merger↗
PubMed2003

Should general practitioners purchase health care for their patients? The total purchasing experiment in Britain.

Until relatively recently, general practitioners (GPs) have been allowed to work independently, with no requirement to consider the resource implications of their referral and prescribing decisions. In order to align the interests of GPs with the overall objectives of health systems a number of countries have introduced primary care based capitation, funds pooling and budget holding either as experiments or as an overall policy. Are these experiments and policies likely to work? This paper presents evidence from the UK total purchasing experiment, which was the first major quasi-market development in the NHS to be independently evaluated from the outset. Total purchasing gave volunteer groups of practices freedom to purchase all hospital and community health services for their patients. The evidence suggests that whilst GPs have great potential as purchasers, they also have considerable limitations. The expectation that they will be able to improve the quality of patient experience of care, or to alter the use of resources, may not be generally realised. GP-based purchasing may be more appropriate where the task is to alter the balance or location of care between hospital and extramural settings. However, budgetary incentives are not 'magic potions' which have similar effects on behaviour wherever they are introduced. Holding budgets and having independent contracts, while important pre-requisites for being taken seriously in a quasi-market, were not sufficient for effective total purchasing. The paper concludes that health systems should not only value innovation and experimentation and encourage learning from evaluative research; they should also recognise the importance of supportive circumstances for any innovation to effect real and sustained change.

Budgets↗
PubMed2002

Reform and counter reform: how sustainable is New Zealand's latest health system restructuring?

New Zealand's health care sector has undergone almost continual restructuring since the early 1980s. In the latest set of reforms, 21 district health boards (DHBs) have been established with responsibility for promoting health, purchasing services for their populations and delivering publicly owned health services. Boards will be governed by a mix of elected and appointed members, will be responsible for arranging the delivery of primary and community health services, and will own and run public hospitals and related facilities. We clarify the differences and continuities between earlier reforms and the 2000/01 structures, as well as the current reforms' potential strengths and weaknesses. The paper discusses whether the DHB model was the only feasible option for restructuring and whether the dynamics of the new system may lead to further changes, particularly on the purchaser side of the system. Given that DHBs face potential conflict between their purchasing and provision roles, and given the potential advantages that primary care organisations may have as purchasers, we conclude that it is possible that all or part of the purchasing function of DHBs might eventually shift to primary care organisations, leaving the DHBs as hospital-based provider organisations.

Health Care Reform↗