University Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2021 May 6;11(5):e045101. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045101.
Though multidisciplinary research networks support the practice and effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) programmes, their characteristics and development are poorly understood. In this study, we examine publication outputs from a research network in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare (PHC) to assess to what extent the research network changed over time.
Australian CQI research network in Indigenous PHC from 2002 to 2019.
Authors from peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by the network.
Coauthor networks across four phases of the network (2002-2004; 2005-2009; 2010-2014; 2015-2019) were constructed based on author affiliations and examined using social network analysis methods. Descriptive characteristics included organisation types, Indigenous representation, gender, student authorship and thematic research trends.
We identified 128 publications written by 308 individual authors from 79 different organisations. Publications increased in number and diversity over each funding phase. During the final phase, publication outputs accelerated for organisations, students, project officers, Indigenous and female authors. Over time there was also a shift in research themes to encompass new clinical areas and social, environmental or behavioural determinants of health. Average degree (8.1), clustering (0.81) and diameter (3) indicated a well-connected network, with a core-periphery structure in each phase (p≤0.03) rather than a single central organisation (degree centralisation=0.55-0.65). Academic organisations dominated the core structure in all funding phases.
Collaboration in publications increased with network consolidation and expansion. Increased productivity was associated with increased authorship diversity and a decentralised network, suggesting these may be important factors in enhancing research impact and advancing the knowledge and practice of CQI in PHC. Publication diversity and growth occurred mainly in the fourth phase, suggesting long-term relationship building among diverse partners is required to facilitate participatory research in CQI. Despite improvements, further work is needed to address inequities in female authorship and Indigenous authorship.
尽管多学科研究网络支持持续质量改进(CQI)计划的实践和效果,但人们对其特征和发展知之甚少。在这项研究中,我们检查了澳大利亚土著初级保健(PHC)研究网络的出版物,以评估该网络随时间的变化程度。
2002 年至 2019 年澳大利亚 CQI 研究网络在土著 PHC 中的作用。
来自网络发表的同行评议期刊文章和书籍的作者。
基于作者的隶属关系,构建了网络的四个阶段(2002-2004 年;2005-2009 年;2010-2014 年;2015-2019 年)的合著者网络,并使用社会网络分析方法进行了检查。描述性特征包括组织类型、土著代表性、性别、学生作者和主题研究趋势。
我们确定了 128 篇由来自 79 个不同组织的 308 位作者撰写的出版物。在每个资助阶段,出版物的数量和多样性都有所增加。在最后一个阶段,组织、学生、项目官员、土著和女性作者的出版物数量加速增长。随着时间的推移,研究主题也发生了转变,涵盖了新的临床领域以及健康的社会、环境或行为决定因素。平均度数(8.1)、聚类(0.81)和直径(3)表明这是一个连接良好的网络,每个阶段都有一个核心-外围结构(p≤0.03),而不是一个单一的核心组织(度中心度=0.55-0.65)。学术组织在所有资助阶段都占据核心结构。
随着网络的巩固和扩展,合作在出版物中不断增加。生产力的提高与作者多样性和去中心化网络的增加有关,这表明这些因素可能是提高研究影响力和推进 PHC 中 CQI 知识和实践的重要因素。多样性和增长主要发生在第四个阶段,这表明需要与不同的合作伙伴建立长期关系,以促进 CQI 中的参与式研究。尽管有所改善,但仍需要进一步努力解决女性作者和土著作者的不平等问题。