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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health research policy and systems 2017-03, Vol.15 (1), p.17-17, Article 17 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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 |