Evaluation of REACCH: Capacity building in Aboriginal research, UNSW Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.300 | 0.249 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".