IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid population ageing is a demographic trend being experienced and documented worldwide. While increased health screening and assessment may help mitigate the burden of illness in older people, issues such as misdiagnosis may affect access to interventions. This study aims to elicit the values and preferences of evidence-informed older people living in the community on early screening for common health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia and frailty). The study will proceed in three Phases: (1) generating recommendations of older people through a series of Citizens' Juries; (2) obtaining feedback from a diverse range of stakeholder groups on the jury findings; and (3) co-designing a set of Knowledge Translation resources to facilitate implementation into research, policy and practice. Conditions were chosen to reflect common health conditions characterised by increasing prevalence with age, but which have been underexamined through a Citizens' Jury methodology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be conducted in three Phases-(1) Citizens' Juries, (2) Policy Roundtables and (3) Production of Knowledge Translation resources. First, older people aged 50+ (n=80), including those from traditionally hard-to-reach and diverse groups, will be purposively recruited to four Citizen Juries. Second, representatives from a range of key stakeholder groups, including consumers and carers, health and aged care policymakers, general practitioners, practice nurses, geriatricians, allied health practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers and community and aged care providers (n=40) will be purposively recruited for two Policy Roundtables. Finally, two researchers and six purposively recruited consumers will co-design Knowledge Translation resources. Thematic analysis will be performed on documentation and transcripts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained through the Torrens University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants will give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through development of a policy brief and lay summary, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and seminars.

Building an evidence base for community health: a review of the quality of program evaluations.

An assessment of the quality of program evaluations conducted in South Australian community health services investigated how effective evaluation reporting is in producing an evidence base for community health. Evaluation reports were assessed by a team of reviewers. Practitioner workshops allowed an understanding of the uses of evaluation and what promotes or acts as a barrier to undertaking evaluations. Community health services do undertake a good deal of evaluation. However, reports were not generally explicit in dealing with the principles that underpin community health. Few engaged with program theory or rationale. Typically, reports were of short-term projects with uncertain futures so there may seem little point in considering issues of long-term health outcomes and transferability to other settings. The most important issue from our study is the lack of investment in applied health services research of the sort that will be required to produce the evidence for practice that policy makers desire. The current lack of evidence for community health reflects failure of the system to invest in research and evaluation that is adequately resourced and designed for complex community settings.