Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Development and evaluation of a tool (named Evidence Brief) to communicate allied health research translation
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Development and evaluation of a tool (named Evidence Brief) to communicate allied health research translation
Do you wish to request the book?
Development and evaluation of a tool (named Evidence Brief) to communicate allied health research translation
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Development and evaluation of a tool (named Evidence Brief) to communicate allied health research translation
2025
Overview
Background
An allied health research capacity building initiative at a regional Australian public health service has increased research activity significantly. To demonstrate the value of allied health research activity a short one-page narrative was developed to communicate the impact of allied health research. This paper evaluates the use of the narrative at this healthcare organisation.
Methods
A multiple case study design was used for the evaluation. Three cases written as narratives were chosen and one comparison case without a narrative. The cases were investigated via organisational document review, policies, or guidelines, and published journal articles, plus semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders. Analysis was conducted in four stages: case context and description, within-case analysis, cross-case analysis and interpretation and evaluation using thematic analysis.
Results
Document analysis revealed the rationale and evidence for the practice change, the instigator of change and enablers. Cross-case analysis identified commonalities such as an expanded scope of practice, clinician-led change, and the inclusion of salient stakeholders to ensure that translation occurred. Differences included the timing of funding and the reach of change.
Conclusion
The one-page narrative (named Evidence Brief) effectively describes a change in clinical practice because of allied health research or quality improvement projects. Evidence Briefs have potential to act as a research measure with each Evidence Brief acting as a unit of change so that over time, accumulated Evidence Briefs may be used to measure clinical practice change resulting from research. Future research by this team will obtain feedback from management to determine the value of Evidence Briefs as a communication tool and to evaluate the extended use of them across other disciplines and healthcare organisations.
Keywords: case study, evaluation, communication, clinical practice change, research impact
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
