Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?

Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of thi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health research policy and systems 2017-03, Vol.15 (1), p.17-17, Article 17
Hauptverfasser: Reed, Richard L, McIntyre, Ellen, Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor, Kalucy, Libby
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 17
container_issue 1
container_start_page 17
container_title Health research policy and systems
container_volume 15
creator Reed, Richard L
McIntyre, Ellen
Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor
Kalucy, Libby
description Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators. The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred. Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies. Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal re
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12961-017-0179-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5335825</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A483845214</galeid><sourcerecordid>A483845214</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8bcd4a54a1c17e8c53d6d740df2a517217984a0304705eeb535ccce0fcb5ca873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkttu1DAQhiMEou3CA3CDLHEDFyl2bG-8XBStKg6VKoE4iEtr4kw2Lkm82E4Pj8Rb4rDLtosqy_Lpm9-e35Nlzxg9ZkzNXwdWLOYsp6yc-iIvH2SHTJQqF5LKh3fmB9lRCBeUFsWCF4-zg0IVki8oP8x-f4bYXsFNINERjwHBm5bYfg0mEjuQtbc9-BvSInSxNeDxDfnRQiS1I8sxRA-dhfuwnRj6QCrsLF4iuXL-57QKcbquAWM7GyEiiS2SMSBxzTS1_vYpjR1qO6zC2yfZowa6gE-34yz7_v7dt9OP-fmnD2eny_PcyELFXFWmFiAFMMNKVEbyel6XgtZNAZKVRfJJCaCcipJKxEpyaYxB2phKGlAln2UnG931WPVYGxymJPU2Q-3A6v2TwbZ65S615FxOvs6yl1sB736NKVfd22Cw62BANwbNVCmESF_AEvriP_TCjX5I6f2lWFKU6pZaQYfaDo1L95pJVC-F4krIgolEHd9DpVZjb40bsLFpfy_g1V5AYiJexxWMIeizr1_2WbZhjXcheGx2fjCqp1rUm1rUqQ6nvtCTkc_vGrmL-Fd8_A-n-9w5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1874133558</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Reed, Richard L ; McIntyre, Ellen ; Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor ; Kalucy, Libby</creator><creatorcontrib>Reed, Richard L ; McIntyre, Ellen ; Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor ; Kalucy, Libby</creatorcontrib><description>Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators. The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred. Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies. Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1478-4505</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-4505</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0179-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28253903</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Advisors ; Ambulatory care ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Australia ; Biomedical Research ; Chronic illnesses ; Communication ; Delivery of Health Care ; Demographic aspects ; Diffusion of Innovation ; Funding ; Health care ; Health Personnel - education ; Health Policy ; Health services ; Health Services Research ; Humans ; Influence ; Information Dissemination ; Information Services ; Interprofessional Relations ; Likert scale ; Management ; Medical research ; Medical scientists ; Periodicals as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Practice ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care ; Professional Practice ; Questionnaires ; Research Personnel - psychology ; Researchers ; Studies ; Surveys</subject><ispartof>Health research policy and systems, 2017-03, Vol.15 (1), p.17-17, Article 17</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright BioMed Central 2017</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8bcd4a54a1c17e8c53d6d740df2a517217984a0304705eeb535ccce0fcb5ca873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8bcd4a54a1c17e8c53d6d740df2a517217984a0304705eeb535ccce0fcb5ca873</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5115-4726</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5335825/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5335825/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27845,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28253903$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reed, Richard L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntyre, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalucy, Libby</creatorcontrib><title>Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?</title><title>Health research policy and systems</title><addtitle>Health Res Policy Syst</addtitle><description>Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators. The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred. Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies. Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting.</description><subject>Advisors</subject><subject>Ambulatory care</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Delivery of Health Care</subject><subject>Demographic aspects</subject><subject>Diffusion of Innovation</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Personnel - education</subject><subject>Health Policy</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health Services Research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Information Dissemination</subject><subject>Information Services</subject><subject>Interprofessional Relations</subject><subject>Likert scale</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical scientists</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care</subject><subject>Professional Practice</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Research Personnel - psychology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><issn>1478-4505</issn><issn>1478-4505</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptkttu1DAQhiMEou3CA3CDLHEDFyl2bG-8XBStKg6VKoE4iEtr4kw2Lkm82E4Pj8Rb4rDLtosqy_Lpm9-e35Nlzxg9ZkzNXwdWLOYsp6yc-iIvH2SHTJQqF5LKh3fmB9lRCBeUFsWCF4-zg0IVki8oP8x-f4bYXsFNINERjwHBm5bYfg0mEjuQtbc9-BvSInSxNeDxDfnRQiS1I8sxRA-dhfuwnRj6QCrsLF4iuXL-57QKcbquAWM7GyEiiS2SMSBxzTS1_vYpjR1qO6zC2yfZowa6gE-34yz7_v7dt9OP-fmnD2eny_PcyELFXFWmFiAFMMNKVEbyel6XgtZNAZKVRfJJCaCcipJKxEpyaYxB2phKGlAln2UnG931WPVYGxymJPU2Q-3A6v2TwbZ65S615FxOvs6yl1sB736NKVfd22Cw62BANwbNVCmESF_AEvriP_TCjX5I6f2lWFKU6pZaQYfaDo1L95pJVC-F4krIgolEHd9DpVZjb40bsLFpfy_g1V5AYiJexxWMIeizr1_2WbZhjXcheGx2fjCqp1rUm1rUqQ6nvtCTkc_vGrmL-Fd8_A-n-9w5</recordid><startdate>20170302</startdate><enddate>20170302</enddate><creator>Reed, Richard L</creator><creator>McIntyre, Ellen</creator><creator>Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor</creator><creator>Kalucy, Libby</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5115-4726</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170302</creationdate><title>Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?</title><author>Reed, Richard L ; McIntyre, Ellen ; Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor ; Kalucy, Libby</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-8bcd4a54a1c17e8c53d6d740df2a517217984a0304705eeb535ccce0fcb5ca873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Advisors</topic><topic>Ambulatory care</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Delivery of Health Care</topic><topic>Demographic aspects</topic><topic>Diffusion of Innovation</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Personnel - education</topic><topic>Health Policy</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health Services Research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Information Dissemination</topic><topic>Information Services</topic><topic>Interprofessional Relations</topic><topic>Likert scale</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical scientists</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care</topic><topic>Professional Practice</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Research Personnel - psychology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reed, Richard L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntyre, Ellen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalucy, Libby</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health research policy and systems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reed, Richard L</au><au>McIntyre, Ellen</au><au>Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor</au><au>Kalucy, Libby</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?</atitle><jtitle>Health research policy and systems</jtitle><addtitle>Health Res Policy Syst</addtitle><date>2017-03-02</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>17</epage><pages>17-17</pages><artnum>17</artnum><issn>1478-4505</issn><eissn>1478-4505</eissn><abstract>Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators. The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred. Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies. Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>28253903</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12961-017-0179-7</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5115-4726</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1478-4505
ispartof Health research policy and systems, 2017-03, Vol.15 (1), p.17-17, Article 17
issn 1478-4505
1478-4505
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5335825
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PAIS Index; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Advisors
Ambulatory care
Attitude of Health Personnel
Australia
Biomedical Research
Chronic illnesses
Communication
Delivery of Health Care
Demographic aspects
Diffusion of Innovation
Funding
Health care
Health Personnel - education
Health Policy
Health services
Health Services Research
Humans
Influence
Information Dissemination
Information Services
Interprofessional Relations
Likert scale
Management
Medical research
Medical scientists
Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Practice
Primary care
Primary Health Care
Professional Practice
Questionnaires
Research Personnel - psychology
Researchers
Studies
Surveys
title Pathways to research impact in primary healthcare: What do Australian primary healthcare researchers believe works best to facilitate the use of their research findings?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T23%3A26%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pathways%20to%20research%20impact%20in%20primary%20healthcare:%20What%20do%20Australian%20primary%20healthcare%20researchers%20believe%20works%20best%20to%20facilitate%20the%20use%20of%20their%20research%20findings?&rft.jtitle=Health%20research%20policy%20and%20systems&rft.au=Reed,%20Richard%20L&rft.date=2017-03-02&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=17&rft.pages=17-17&rft.artnum=17&rft.issn=1478-4505&rft.eissn=1478-4505&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12961-017-0179-7&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA483845214%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1874133558&rft_id=info:pmid/28253903&rft_galeid=A483845214&rfr_iscdi=true