Evaluation of REACCH: Capacity building in Aboriginal research, UNSW Australia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research Excellence in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health (REACCH) was a program of research involving the Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society (The Kirby), the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) and four state Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS): Goondir Health Services (QLD), the Aboriginal Medical Service Western Sydney (NSW), Nunkuwarrin Yunti of South Australia Inc (SA) and the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service (VAHS). Four state peak Aboriginal organisations were involved in a Steering Committee to ensure state representation including the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council NSW (AHMRC), Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council (QAIHC), The Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation Incorporated (VACCHO) and The Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia Inc. (AHCSA). REACCH was funded for five years in 2009 by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centres of Research Excellence (CRE) grant. REACCH research projects had a focus on sexually transmissible diseases and blood borne viruses. The aims of REACCH were to: 1. Enhance the clinical research capacity of individual participating ACCHS 2. Ensure effective translation of research skills and training into clinical practice 3. Develop a new clinical research network with services by building capacity to expand the scope of activities beyond the initial funding period. A qualitative evaluation of the implementation and impact of REACCH capacity development and research governance was undertaken from late 2015 to early 2016. It focussed on collecting and analysing the perspective and experiences of Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) participants and other key stakeholders. The data were collected, analysed and written up in this report by a team at the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Australia. The aims of this evaluation were to explore: 1. How REACCH governance processes impacted ACCHS experience of the project as a whole, including service involvement, perceived benefits and challenges. 2. The extent and success of REACCH capacity building activities in the development of individual researchers and the development of a culture of research and evaluation within each participating ACCHS. 3. The extent of REACCH capacity development activities, including participation in research training, project development and management, as well as publications and presentations through a stocktake of these activities. REACCH was largely successful in addressing its three aims and in achieving at least some degree of success in the following key domains that have been identified in relevant capacity building frameworks as central to empowerment of communities and organisations (1-3). There were also a number of areas for improvement highlighted against these key domains and these are also reflected in the recommendations for future efforts to build research capacity in the sector detailed at the end of this Executive Summary and at the end of the report. The challenges faced in REACCH in the efforts to build research capacity in health services are not unique to the ACCHO sector, and are likely to be reflected in any researcher/service provider partnership in research and evaluation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,300 | 0,249 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,020 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».