The research collective: a tool for producing timely, context-linked research syntheses.

This paper reports on a research collective in primary healthcare (PHC) conducted in Quebec in 2004. A lead team of investigators synthesized 30 ongoing or recently completed studies from project description forms filled out by the participating researchers. The process of the collective is examined by addressing the three main challenges met in the course of its completion, namely, (a) the need to derive an analytical framework to regroup variables in a meaningful way, (b) the assessment of strength of evidence and (c) coping with a mix of quantitative and qualitative studies. Advantages of the collective over other forms of research synthesis include timeliness, low cost relative to the total cost of the studies it comprises and the information it generates and, finally, context linkage, which enhances relevance but which could limit transferability of the findings. Overall, the research collective appears to be a promising tool for research synthesis.

[1]  R. Yin Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. , 1999, Health services research.

[2]  J. Denis,et al.  1. A Knowledge Utilization Perspective on Fine-Tuning Dissemination and Contextualizing Knowledge , 2004 .

[3]  Trevor A Sheldon,et al.  Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[4]  Barbara Starfield,et al.  Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology , 1998 .

[5]  Roy Romanow,et al.  Building on Values: Report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada [Reports] , 2002 .

[6]  A. Donabedian,et al.  The Criteria and Standards of Quality , 1980 .

[7]  J. Lurie,et al.  The future of primary care. , 2004, Annals of internal medicine.

[8]  J. Popay,et al.  Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[9]  F. Champagne,et al.  3. A Political Science Perspective on Evidence-Based Decision-Making , 2004 .

[10]  A. Oxman,et al.  Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review , 2002, Journal of health services research & policy.

[11]  J. Haggerty,et al.  Choices for Change : The Path for Restructuring Primary Healthcare Services in Canada , 2003 .

[12]  Karen Golden-Biddle,et al.  Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[13]  Michael Huberman,et al.  Research utilization: The state of the art , 1994 .

[14]  James Macinko,et al.  The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. , 2003, Health services research.

[15]  J Lomas,et al.  Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. , 2000, Health affairs.

[16]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[17]  K. Devers How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. , 1999, Health services research.

[18]  Young Persons Women in Agriculture Report of the Commissioners , 1868 .

[19]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[20]  A. Tsui,et al.  Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[21]  M. Patton,et al.  Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. , 1999, Health services research.