Browsing by Author "Laycock A."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Emerging evidence of the value of health assessments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the primary healthcare setting.(2019-01-21) Bailie J.; Laycock A.; Matthews V.; Peiris D.; Bailie R.The launch of the third edition of the National guide to preventive health assessment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in March 2018 heralds a renewed commitment to improving the delivery of preventive care, and should reinvigorate discussions on the effectiveness of Indigenous-specific health assessments and how best to implement them. A substantial body of evidence on adherence to guideline-recommended care has been generated through a research-based continuous quality improvement (CQI) initiative conducted between 2010 and 2014. The research, which involved clinical audits of more than 17 000 client records and 119 systems assessments relating to preventive care in 137 Indigenous primary healthcare centres across Australia, shows that a structured CQI program can improve the delivery of preventive health assessments and use of evidence-based guidelines. However, program implementation has also seen the emergence of new challenges. This paper reflects on four major lessons from this collaborative program of applied research that will lead to more effective delivery of preventive care.Copyright © La Trobe University 2019 Open Access.Item Using developmental evaluation to support knowledge translation: reflections from a large-scale quality improvement project in Indigenous primary healthcare.(2019-07-24) Laycock A.; Bailie J.; Matthews V.; Bailie R.Background: Developmental evaluation is a growing area of evaluation practice, advocated for informing the adaptive development of change initiatives in complex social environments. The utilisation focus, complexity perspective and systems thinking of developmental evaluation suggest suitability for evaluating knowledge translation initiatives in primary healthcare. However, there are few examples in the literature to guide its use in these contexts and in Indigenous settings. In this paper, we reflect on our experience of using developmental evaluation to implement a large-scale knowledge translation research project in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. Drawing on principles of knowledge translation and key features of developmental evaluation, we debate the key benefits and challenges of applying this approach to engage diverse stakeholders in using aggregated quality improvement data to identify and address persistent gaps in care delivery. Discussion(s): The developmental evaluation enabled the team to respond to stakeholder feedback and apply learning in real-time to successfully refine theory-informed research and engagement processes, tailor the presentation of findings to stakeholders and context, and support the project's dissemination and knowledge co-production aim. It thereby contributed to the production of robust, useable research findings for informing policy and system change. The use of developmental evaluation appeared to positively influence stakeholders' use of the project reports and their responses to the findings. Challenges included managing a high volume of evaluation data and multiple evaluation purposes, balancing facilitative sense-making processes and change with task-focused project management, and lack of experience in using this evaluation approach. Use of an embedded evaluator with facilitation skills and background knowledge of the project helped to overcome these challenges, as did similarities observed between features of developmental evaluation and continuous quality improvement. Conclusion(s): Our experience of developmental evaluation confirmed our expectations of the potential value of this approach for strengthening improvement interventions and implementation research, and particularly for adapting healthcare innovations in Indigenous settings. In our project, developmental evaluation successfully encompassed evaluation, project adaptation, capacity development and knowledge translation. Further work is warranted to apply this approach more widely to improve primary healthcare initiatives and outcomes, and to evaluate implementation research.Copyright © 2019 The Author(s).