<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com">
<title>Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy recent issues</title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com</link>
<description>Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy RSS feed -- recent issues</description>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1355-8196</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/193?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/194?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/197?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/204?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/212?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/219?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/224?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/226?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/234?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/243?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/249?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/251?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/255?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/129?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/131?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/133?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/141?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/150?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/156?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/165?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/168?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/174?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/183?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/186?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/188?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/190?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/65?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/68?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/70?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/77?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/82?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/88?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/96?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/104?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/112?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/117?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/119?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/120?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/124?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/126?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/2?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/4?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/6?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/13?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/20?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/27?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/35?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/44?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/52?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/58?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/62?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/193?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The theory and practice of markets in health care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/193?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ham, C., Ellins, J., Parker, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009048</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The theory and practice of markets in health care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>194</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>193</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/194?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evidence-based design of health care facilities]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/194?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Codinhoto, R., Aouad, G., Kagioglou, M., Tzortzopoulos, P., Cooper, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009094</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evidence-based design of health care facilities]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>196</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>194</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/197?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What medical specialists like and dislike about health technology assessment reports]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/197?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To examine how medical specialists view health technology assessment (HTA) and its role in policy-making.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Semi-structured interviews with 28 medical specialists practising in Quebec and Ontario (Canada) to examine their views on an HTA report relevant to their specialty (prostate-specific antigen screening, electroconvulsive therapy and prenatal screening for Down's syndrome).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Medical specialists represent a particularly demanding audience for HTA producers because they are knowledgeable about current studies in their field and often contribute to the evidence base that HTA seeks to synthesize. In all three cases, specialists not only challenged specific points in the content of the HTA reports but also offered different and sometimes conflicting appraisals of the clinical relevance and policy implications. More than just the timeliness and usefulness of HTA findings are at issue. The views of specialists are grounded in a clinical understanding of what counts as evidence and how decisions should be made, a view that contrasts with the societal perspective of HTA.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>HTA producers cannot afford to overlook medical specialists who play a key role in the adoption of health technologies. Establishing a transparent dialogue between producers and users of HTA reports could enrich policy recommendations.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lehoux, P., Hivon, M., Denis, J.-L., Tailliez, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008153</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What medical specialists like and dislike about health technology assessment reports]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>203</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>197</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/204?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Bringing genetics into primary care: findings from a national evaluation of pilots in England]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/204?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Developments in genetic knowledge and clinical applications are seen as rendering traditional modes of organizing genetics provision increasingly inappropriate. In common with a number of developed world countries the UK has sought to increase the role of primary care in delivering such services. However, efforts to reconfigure service delivery face multiple challenges associated with divergent policy objectives, organizational boundaries and professional cultures. This paper presents findings from an evaluation of an English initiative to integrate genetics into &lsquo;mainstream&rsquo; clinical provision in the National Health Service.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative research in 11 case-study sites focusing on attempts by pilots funded by the initiative to embed knowledge and provision within primary care illustrating barriers faced and the ways in which these were surmounted.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Lack of intrinsic interest in clinical genetics among primary care staff was compounded by national targets that focused their attention elsewhere and by service structures that rendered genetics a peripheral concern demanding minimal engagement. Established divisions between the commissioning of mainstream and specialist services, along with the pressures of shorter-term targets, impeded ongoing funding.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>More wide-ranging policy and organizational support is required if the aim of entrenching genetics knowledge and practice across the Health Service is to be realized.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martin, G., Currie, G., Finn, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008158</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Bringing genetics into primary care: findings from a national evaluation of pilots in England]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>211</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>204</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/212?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['There are too many of us to fix.' Patients' views of acceptable waiting times for hip and knee replacement]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/212?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To assess patients' views of maximum acceptable waiting times (MAWT) for hip and knee replacement, associated factors and the accuracy of self-reported waiting times.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We mailed 1000 questionnaires each to two random samples of patients either waiting for or who had received an arthroplasty within the preceding 3&ndash;12 months. We used linear regression to assess the determinants of patient MAWT, and content analysis to assess reasons for MAWT and ideal waiting time.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Of the 1330 responses, 1127 had MAWT data. The sample was 57% women; mean age was 70 &plusmn; 11 years. Median self-reported and actual waiting time was eight months (Spearman correlation = 0.70). Median MAWT was four months and ideal waiting time was two months. The most frequent reasons for MAWT were pain, quality of life and needing time to prepare for surgery. A longer MAWT was associated with younger age, group (waiting), a longer self-reported waiting time, better EQ-5D index, an acceptable waiting time, a perception of fairness and a view that others worse off on the list should go ahead.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Patients' views of acceptable waiting times are important for a fair process of establishing waiting time benchmarks for joint replacement.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Conner-Spady, B., Sanmartin, C., Johnston, G., McGurran, J., Kehler, M., Noseworthy, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008128</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA['There are too many of us to fix.' Patients' views of acceptable waiting times for hip and knee replacement]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>218</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>212</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/219?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evidence-based practice in British complementary and alternative medicine: double standards?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/219?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The principles of evidence-based practice (EBP) are fundamental to medical ethics and seem essential for any form of health care. In 2000, a House of Lords Select Committee recommended that the ethos of EBP should extend to complementary and alternative medicine. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether EBP is incorporated in the codes of ethics of British complementary and alternative medicine organizations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We obtained the codes of the following bodies: Association of Naturopathic Practitioners, Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine (UK), Ayurvedic Practitioners Association, British Acupuncture Council, Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council, European Herbal Practitioners Association, General Chiropractic Council, General Osteopathic Council, General Regulatory Council for Complementary Therapies, National Institute of Medical Herbalists, Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, Society of Homeopaths, UK Healers, Unified Register of Herbal Practitioners. We then extracted the statements referring to EBP and compared this with what the respective codes of British doctors and nurses proscribed.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Only the General Chiropractic Council, the General Osteopathic Council and the General Regulatory Council for Complementary Therapies oblige their members to adopt EBP.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>This discloses double standards in UK health care which may compromise patient safety.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hunt, K., Ernst, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evidence-based practice in British complementary and alternative medicine: double standards?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>223</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>219</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/224?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Commentary: Motes, beams and evidence-based practice]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/224?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fisher, P., Katz, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009106</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Commentary: Motes, beams and evidence-based practice]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>225</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>224</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/226?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: the example of antiretroviral medication adherence]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/226?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Bayesian meta-analysis is a frequently cited but very little-used method for synthesizing qualitative and quantitative research findings. The only example published to date used qualitative data to generate an informative prior probability and quantitative data to generate the likelihood. We developed a method to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative evidence in the likelihood in a Bayesian synthesis of evidence about the relationship between regimen complexity and medication adherence.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Data were from 11 qualitative and six quantitative studies. We updated two different non-informative prior distributions with qualitative and quantitative findings to find the posterior distribution for the probabilities that a more complex regimen was associated with lower adherence and that a less complex regimen was associated with greater adherence.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The posterior mode for the qualitative findings regarding more complex regimen and lesser adherence (using the uniform prior with Jeffreys' prior yielding highly similar estimates) was 0.588 (95% credible set limits 0.519, 0.663) and for the quantitative findings was 0.224 (0.203, 0.245); due to non-overlapping credible sets, we did not combine them. The posterior mode for the qualitative findings regarding less complex regimen and greater adherence was 0.288 (0.214, 0.441) and for the quantitative findings was 0.272 (0.118, 0.437); the combined estimate was 0.299 (0.267, 0.334).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The utility of Bayesian methods for synthesizing qualitative and quantitative research findings at the participant level may depend on the nature of the relationship being synthesized and on how well the findings are represented in the individual reports.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Voils, C., Hassselblad, V., Crandell, J., Chang, Y., Lee, E., Sandelowski, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008186</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: the example of antiretroviral medication adherence]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>233</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>226</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/234?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/234?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The objective of this research was to provide further insights into the ability of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to help health care decision-makers in deciding where to allocate scarce resources so as to best meet their organizational objectives.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We report on a case study of PBMA implementation. The main source of information was two sets of semi-structured evaluation interviews conducted with senior decision-makers after each of the first two years of PBMA implementation in Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), Canada. These interviews were analysed thematically, with initial coding based upon themes that had been identified in the previous stage of the research.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Many of the initial problems with PBMA implementation resolved themselves over time as participants became more familiar with the process. However, some problems needed to be addressed explicitly through changes in procedures. Establishing procedures for handling &lsquo;must-dos&rsquo; (i.e. spending priorities, that are externally mandated) did not replace the need to define explicitly the extent of the organization's discretionary spending authority.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Faced with claims that typically outstrip available resources, health care decision-makers need a process to guide allocation decisions. PBMA has demonstrated at VIHA an ability to handle some of the key issues associated with this challenge. Our analysis has produced lessons that should facilitate future implementation but has also shown that resource allocation criteria selection and the extent of executive discretion are likely to be ongoing challenges.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dionne, F., Mitton, C., Smith, N., Donaldson, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008182</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>242</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>234</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/243?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Equity in the distribution of community pharmacies in England: impact of regulatory reform]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/243?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To examine whether relaxation of control of entry regulations for community pharmacy contracts in England, introduced in 2005, affected the distribution of community pharmacies relative to population need indicators.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Community pharmacy locations and population need indicators were used to calculate three summary measures of distributional equity across Primary Care Trust (PCT) areas (<I>n</I> = 152): the Gini coefficient, Atkinson Index and community pharmacies per PCT population. The indicators were adjusted for need using data from NHS GP contract Quality and Outcomes Framework disease registers, deprivation, all-cause mortality and elderly population rates.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Numbers of community pharmacies increased by 397 (4%) between 2005 and 2007 with three supermarket chains accounting for 152 (38%) of new pharmacies. Over one-quarter of PCTs experienced increases of 5% or more in community pharmacies per capita between 2005 and 2007. Gini and Atkinson indicators showed small increases in distributional equity across all population needs indicators.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Deregulation was associated with more community pharmacies per capita and a small increase in geographic equity of community pharmacy distribution at PCT level. Future research should continue to monitor how pharmacy distribution changes over time and assess the extent to which the new regulatory framework has allowed clustering of pharmacies which could result in increased inequity below PCT level.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wagner, A., Hann, M., Noyce, P., Ashcroft, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008167</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Equity in the distribution of community pharmacies in England: impact of regulatory reform]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>248</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>243</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/249?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Assessment and accountability]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/249?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Relman, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009071</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Assessment and accountability]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>250</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>249</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Worth a second look</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/251?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Images in health care: potential and problems]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/251?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Although communication issues within health care have received greater research and policy attention in recent years, one growing aspect of such communication has been largely overlooked. In this paper we suggest that visual forms of communication, at both the individual and population level, are increasingly used and relied upon. This seems appropriate given a general shift towards a more visual and visually literate society, and the potential of images to convey complex information and influence both beliefs and emotion. However, we also argue that the widespread use of such a potentially powerful tool necessitates a solid evidence base that is currently lacking. Such a lack leaves image-based interventions at best potentially ineffective and at worst harmful. We examine the reasons for the paucity of research in this area and suggest that in fact a multitude of supportive research and theory exists but that at present it is spread across a range of academic fields with little interdisciplinary dialogue. Given the current desire to see increased inter- and multidisciplinary dialogue and the acceptance of the need for theoretical and empirical underpinnings for complex interventions, it would seem that there may now be both the will and the way forward to forge new collaborations, integrate such theories and develop a more sophisticated evidence base to support the growing use of images in health care settings.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Williams, B., Cameron, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008168</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Images in health care: potential and problems]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>254</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>251</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/255?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[How to review a paper]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/4/255?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p><I>Peer review is integral to assuring the quality of papers that are published in the scientific literature. Many health professionals at some point in their career will be invited by a journal editor to review a manuscript that has been submitted for publication. What resources are available on the web to support reviewers in this task? This edition of &lsquo;What's on the web&rsquo; pulls together some of the essential websites that provide guidance, tips, background information and current debates about the process of peer review.</I></p>
<p><I>If you would like to alert readers to useful web pages or suggest topics for this column, please send details to:</I></p>
<p><b>Kath Wright</b></p>
<p>Information Service Manager</p>
<p>Centre for Reviews and Dissemination</p>
<p>University of York, York YO10 5DD UK</p>
<p>(Email: <inter-ref locator="kew5@york.ac.uk" locator-type="email">kew5@york.ac.uk</inter-ref>)</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harden, M., Wright, K., Misso, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009069</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How to review a paper]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>256</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>255</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web?</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/129?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Opportunity value]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/129?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gray, M., Porter, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008105</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Opportunity value]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>130</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>129</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/131?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Paying for better outcomes - the English way]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/131?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sussex, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009028</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Paying for better outcomes - the English way]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>132</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>131</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/133?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Sources of variation in the costs of health care for asthma patients in Australia]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/133?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Individuals with chronic conditions, such as asthma, on average incur high health care costs, though good control can reduce costs and improve health outcomes. However, there may be substantial variation between patients in their use of services and therefore costs. Our objective was to investigate the sources of such variation in health system and out-of-pocket costs for people with asthma.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A longitudinal observational study of 252 people with asthma in New South Wales, Australia, followed for three years, using six-monthly postal surveys and individual administrative data. Factors associated with costs were investigated using generalized linear mixed models.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>There was substantial variability in costs between individuals but relatively little within-person change over time for the majority. Costs to the health system and out-of-pocket costs were higher with increasing asthma-related health problems and increasing age. Health system costs were less for patients living outside the state capital (Sydney) and for those in the middle income group relative to high and low income groups.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Those with poorly-controlled asthma and the elderly require more carefully targeted strategies to improve their health and ensure appropriate use of resources. Access to appropriate services for those living outside of major cities should be improved. Co-payments for the middle-income groups and those living outside major cities should be reduced to improve equity in the use of services.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kenny, P., Hall, J., King, M., Lancsar, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008078</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Sources of variation in the costs of health care for asthma patients in Australia]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>140</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>133</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/141?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Delivering health care through community pharmacies: are working conditions deterring female pharmacists' participation?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/141?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>Recent UK government policy has placed community pharmacists at the frontline of health care delivery in order to improve patient access. Community pharmacy has been beset by recruitment and retention problems which potentially threaten health service delivery. This is largely a consequence of an increased demand for pharmacists. Additionally, the proportion of female pharmacists in the profession has risen. Consequently, interrupted career patterns and part-time working practices have increased, shrinking the pool of available workers. This study aimed to examine the importance of factors influencing female community pharmacists' work patterns.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method</st>
<p>Q methodology was used in a sample of 40 female UK-based community pharmacists.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Nine distinct factors emerged from a factor analysis of Q sorts: fulfilled pharmacists; family first or pharmacy shelved; low stress altruist; permanent part-time employees; focused on free time and finances; pressurized modernizers; wandering wage slaves; overloaded and under resourced for the new contract; and pin money part-timers. Female community pharmacists often worked below their potential and part-time at a practitioner level in response to a combination of domestic commitments and intensifying work place pressures.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Family-friendly flexible work environments, adequate staffing levels and improved management support, might be more effective in increasing workforce participation than enhanced salary levels in this group of workers.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gidman, W., Day, J., Hassell, K., Payne, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008077</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Delivering health care through community pharmacies: are working conditions deterring female pharmacists' participation?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>149</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>141</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/150?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Patient and hospital characteristics associated with claims and compensations for patient injuries in coronary artery bypass grafting in Finland]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/150?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To analyse the association between individual patients' risk factors and rates of claims and compensations for patient injuries in an insurance scheme in which proof of negligence is not required. And to explore whether either hospital productivity or volume of procedures is related to claims and compensation rates.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A two-step sequential logistic regression was applied on data collected from administrative registers. It included 17,834 patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting at public hospitals in Finland between 1998 and 2002. The main outcome measure was the odds of claiming and receiving compensation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Men were less likely to claim compensation (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.54&ndash;0.81), but among those having claimed were more likely to receive compensation (OR 2.08; 1.15&ndash;3.75) than women. Patients with a co-morbidity were more likely to claim (OR 1.29; 1.06&ndash;1.57), but among those having claimed were less likely to receive compensation (OR 0.52; 0.31&ndash;0.86) than those without a co-morbidity. Advanced age reduced the probability of claiming (OR 0.71; 0.52&ndash;0.96).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Although high-risk patients file a claim more frequently than low-risk patients, the latter have a higher probability of getting their claims accepted and receiving compensation. This risk pattern is probably a reflection of compensation practices related to patient injuries involving an infection.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jarvelin, J., Rosenqvist, G., Hakkinen, U., Sintonen, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008084</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Patient and hospital characteristics associated with claims and compensations for patient injuries in coronary artery bypass grafting in Finland]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>155</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>150</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/156?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/156?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Although there is widespread agreement about the importance of transferring knowledge into action, we still lack high quality information about what works, in which settings and with whom. While there are a large number of models and theories for knowledge transfer interventions, the majority are untested, meaning that their applicability and relevance is largely unknown. This paper describes the development of a conceptual framework of translating knowledge into action and discusses how it can be used for developing a useful model of the knowledge transfer process.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A narrative review of the knowledge transfer literature identified 28 different models which explained all or part of the knowledge transfer process. The models were subjected to a thematic analysis to identify individual components and the types of processes used when transferring knowledge into action. The results were used to build a conceptual framework of the process.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Five common components of the knowledge transfer process were identified: problem identification and communication; knowledge/research development and selection; analysis of context; knowledge transfer activities or interventions; and knowledge/research utilization. We also identified three types of knowledge transfer processes: a linear process; a cyclical process; and a dynamic multidirectional process. From these results a conceptual framework of knowledge transfer was developed. The framework illustrates the five common components of the knowledge transfer process and shows that they are connected via a complex, multidirectional set of interactions. As such the framework allows for the individual components to occur simultaneously or in any given order and to occur more than once during the knowledge transfer process.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Our framework provides a foundation for gathering evidence from case studies of knowledge transfer interventions. We propose that future empirical work is designed to test and refine the relevance, importance and applicability of each of the components in order to build a more useful model of knowledge transfer which can serve as a practical checklist for planning or evaluating knowledge transfer activities.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ward, V., House, A., Hamer, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008120</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>164</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>156</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/165?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Tackling climate change close to home: mobile breast screening as a model]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/165?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>Health services contribute significantly to carbon dioxide (CO<SUB>2</SUB>) emissions and, while services in the UK are beginning to address this, the focus has been on reducing energy consumption rather than road transport, a major component of emissions. We aimed to compare the distances travelled by patients attending mobile breast screening clinics compared to the distance they would need to travel if screening services were centralized.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Anonymized postcode records were analysed to determine driving distances potentially saved through attendance at 20 mobile breast screening clinics rather than at two centralized locations. Based on assumptions for the typical car used, the CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions were calculated for the current case of decentralized service through mobile clinics compared to a hypothetical case where only centralized services are available over one complete three-year cycle of breast screening invitations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The availability of mobile breast screening clinics for the 60,675 women who underwent screening over a three-year cycle led to a return journey distance savings of 1,429,908 km. Taking into account the CO<SUB>2</SUB> emissions of the tractor unit used for moving the mobile clinics around, this equates to approximately 75 tonnes of CO<SUB>2</SUB> saved in any one year.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Decentralizing health care delivery can potentially provide substantial reductions in emissions at the same time as improving the patient experience. Thus, the &lsquo;care close to home&rsquo; agenda can simultaneously improve health outcomes and the environment.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bond, A., Jones, A., Haynes, R., Tam, M., Denton, E., Ballantyne, M., Curtin, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008154</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Tackling climate change close to home: mobile breast screening as a model]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>167</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>165</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/168?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Reducing waiting times for hospital treatment: lessons from the English NHS]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/168?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In recent years, the English NHS has achieved substantial reductions in waiting times for hospital treatment. This paper considers first whether the data used by the Government provide an accurate description of changes in waiting times and identifies some of the limitations of the measures used. It then attempts to identify how reductions have been achieved. It argues that some features of central government policy have been important &ndash; such as the use of targets &ndash; others, such as the introduction of new private sector capacity have not. It also shows that changes at local level have been critical to achieving the recorded improvements, but the precise impact of these is hard to identify.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harrison, A., Appleby, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008118</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Reducing waiting times for hospital treatment: lessons from the English NHS]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>173</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>168</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/174?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What is the relationship between patients' and clinicians' reports of the outcomes of elective surgery?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/174?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To identify studies in which patients' and clinicians' reports of health status and complications of one of four elective operations &ndash; hip and knee replacement, varicose vein surgery and groin hernia repair &ndash; are reported, and to describe the associations that have been reported between clinicians' and patients' reports.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Systematic search of several bibliographic databases and review of citations of articles meeting inclusion criteria. A narrative summary of the findings was conducted.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Most of the 62 studies of health status identified were for hip (23) or knee (33) disease. The literature on complications was even more limited with 12 studies of surgical site infection, one for urinary tract infection and none for lower respiratory tract infections. Procedure-specific complications were restricted to one for arthroplasties and three for hernia repair. Despite considerable variation in the findings of studies, some clear patterns emerge, albeit they are largely based on arthroplasty. Patients' and clinicians' views of health status generally correlate moderately (0.5&ndash;0.6) when both are reporting on the same dimension of health status. Inevitably this is confined to disability, though patients' and clinicians' reports of symptoms are also moderately correlated. In contrast, comparisons of different dimensions, such as patients' reports of disability and clinicians' reports of impairment, result in poor correlation (0.3). There is huge variation in the way postoperative complications are measured which limits the extent to which an overview can be undertaken. Despite that, moderate to strong correlations have been reported between patients' and clinicians' views of complications.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Patients' views of their level of disability reflect clinicians' views and can be relied upon to assess this dimension of health status. In addition, patients are the &lsquo;gold standard&rsquo; judges of symptoms and quality of life. Given these findings, clinicians, provider managers, commissioners and politicians can be confident that patients' reports provide an accurate indication of the outcome of elective surgery.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bream, E., Black, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008115</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What is the relationship between patients' and clinicians' reports of the outcomes of elective surgery?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>182</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>174</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/183?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Measuring the quality of medical care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/183?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Holland, W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009012</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Measuring the quality of medical care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>185</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>183</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Worth a second look</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/186?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[UK chiropractic: regulated but unruly]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/186?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Since 1994 chiropractic has been regulated by statute in the UK. Despite this air of respectability, a range of important problems continue to bedevil this profession. Professional organizations of chiropractic and their members make numerous claims which are not supported by sound evidence. Many chiropractors adhere to concepts which fly in the face of science and most seem to regularly violate important principles of ethical behaviour. The advice chiropractors give to their clients is often dangerously misleading. If chiropractic in the UK is to grow into an established health care profession, the General Chiropractic Council and its members should comply with the accepted standards of today's health care.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ernst, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008183</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[UK chiropractic: regulated but unruly]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>187</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>186</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/188?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[In praise of chiropractic]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/188?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The rationales used in chiropractic are largely in keeping with current evidence-based guidance. When listening to debates for and against the scientific basis of chiropractic, it is important to be aware of the selective use of evidence on both sides and of the limitations of logical positivistic arguments when it comes to health care areas that have a substantial psychosocial component.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Breen, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009025</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[In praise of chiropractic]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>189</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>188</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/190?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[National clinical guidance]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/3/190?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harden, M., Light, K., Misso, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009037</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[National clinical guidance]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>192</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>190</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web?</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/65?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Clinically integrated health care in the English NHS]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/65?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Enthoven, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008163</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Clinically integrated health care in the English NHS]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>67</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>65</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/68?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Unhealthy markets: financial crisis, fiscal crisis ... health care crisis?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/68?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Evans, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009001</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Unhealthy markets: financial crisis, fiscal crisis ... health care crisis?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>69</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>68</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/70?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Tight budgetary control: a study of clinical department managers' perceptions in Swedish hospitals]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/70?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The composition of clinical department managers in Swedish hospitals is changing; more non-doctors and women are entering managerial positions. In parallel, most hospitals face increased pressure to contain costs. This article presents a study of managers' perceptions of tightness of budgetary control and how their views vary systematically with personal characteristics and organizational conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method</st>
<p>Data were collected through a postal survey in 2005 to 173 clinical department managers (response rate of 70%). Statistical analysis was performed by factor analysis and logistic regression.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The data suggest that clinical department managers' perceptions of tight budgetary control were related to how long they had been in their current position, their profession (whether they were doctors or non-doctors) and their sex. Further, their perceptions could be explained by how close the managers' departments were to their budget targets.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Perception of tight budgetary control by managers depends on both their personal characteristics and the financial situation of their departments. Differences between men and women, and doctors and non-doctors call for additional research about the possible impact of changes in the composition of clinical department managers on how budgetary responsibility is exercised.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nylinder, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008063</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Tight budgetary control: a study of clinical department managers' perceptions in Swedish hospitals]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>76</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>70</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/77?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/77?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To evaluate the effectiveness and cost of obtaining consent for review of medical records within the passively observed non-intervention arm of a cluster randomized controlled trial, &lsquo;Comparison Arm for ProtecT&rsquo;.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Two hundred and thirty men, who had been notified to the trial by cancer registries as having prostate cancer, were sent a consent form from their general practitioner or secondary care clinician. The consent rate of participants to the review of their medical records and the estimated costs of the process were evaluated.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>One hundred and seventy-nine men (84%: 95% CI = 78%, 89%) consented to have their medical notes reviewed at an estimated cost of &pound;123 (172, $248) per person.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>A high consent rate for review of medical notes is achievable but at a cost. There needs to be renewed debate about the automatic need for consent to review medical records where the chance of personal harm is negligible and the purpose of the review is to provide robust evidence to save lives, prevent needless suffering, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health care delivery.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Noble, S., Donovan, J., Turner, E., Metcalfe, C., Lane, A., Rowlands, M.-A., Neal, D., Hamdy, F., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Martin, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008085</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>81</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>77</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/82?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Experience of continuity of care of patients with multiple long-term conditions in England]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/82?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To examine patients' experiences of continuity of care in the context of different long-term conditions and models of care, and to explore implications for the future organization care of long-term conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out with 33 patients recruited from seven general practices in South London. Patients were selected who had one or more of the following long-term conditions: arthritis, coronary heart disease, stroke, hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Multiple morbidity was frequent and experiences of continuity were framed within patients' wider experiences of health care rather than the context of a particular diagnosis. Positive experiences of relational continuity were strongly associated with long-term GP-led or specialist-led care. Management continuity was experienced in the context of shared care in terms of transitions between professionals or organizations. Access and flexibility issues were identified as important barriers or facilitators of continuity.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Across a range of long-term conditions, patients' experiences of health care can be understood in terms of nuanced understandings of relational and management continuity. Continuity experiences, meanings and expectations, as well as barriers and facilitators, are influenced by the model of care rather than type of condition.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cowie, L., Morgan, M., White, P., Gulliford, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008111</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Experience of continuity of care of patients with multiple long-term conditions in England]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>87</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>82</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/88?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Impacts of case management for frail elderly people: a qualitative study]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/88?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To assess the impacts of different forms of case management for people aged over 65 years at risk of unplanned hospital admission, in particular the impacts upon patients, carers and health service organization in English primary care; and, in these respects, compare the Evercare model with alternatives.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Multiple qualitative case studies comparing case management in nine English Primary Care Trusts which piloted the Evercare model of case management and four sites which implemented alternative forms of case management between 2003 and 2005. Data were obtained from 231 interviews with patients, carers and other key informants, and from content analysis of documents and observation of meetings.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>All the projects established functioning case management services, but none led to major service reorganization or savings elsewhere in the health care system. Many informants reported examples of admissions which case management had prevented, but overall hospital admissions did not significantly change, possibly due to increased case-finding. Patients and carers valued case management for improving access to health care, increasing psychosocial support and improving communication with health professionals.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Case management was highly valued by patients and their carers, but there were few major differences in outcomes between Evercare and other models.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheaff, R., Boaden, R., Sargent, P., Pickard, S., Gravelle, H., Parker, S., Roland, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007142</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Impacts of case management for frail elderly people: a qualitative study]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>95</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>88</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/96?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Does the culture of a medical practice affect the clinical management of diabetes by primary care providers?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/96?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The financing and organization of primary care in the United States has changed dramatically in recent decades. Primary care physicians have shifted from solo practice to larger group practices. The culture of a medical practice is thought to have an important influence on physician behavior. This study examines the effects of practice culture and organizational structure (while controlling for patient and physician characteristics) on the quality of physician decision-making.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Data were obtained from a balanced factorial experiment which employed a clinically authentic video-taped scenario of diabetes with emerging peripheral neuropathy.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Our findings show that several key practice culture variables significantly influence clinical decision-making with respect to diabetes. Practice culture may contribute more to whether essential examinations are performed than patient or physician variables or the structural characteristics of clinical organizations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Attention is beginning to focus on physician behavior in the context of different organizational environments. This study provides additional support for the suggestion that organization-level interventions (especially focused on practice culture) may offer an opportunity to reduce health care disparities and improve the quality of care.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shackelton, R., Link, C., Marceau, L., McKinlay, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008124</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Does the culture of a medical practice affect the clinical management of diabetes by primary care providers?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>103</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>96</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/104?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Partnerships for knowledge exchange in health services research, policy and practice]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/104?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Within the health services research community there is a growing strength of feeling that ongoing partnerships between researchers and decision-makers are critically important to effective transfer and exchange of knowledge generated from health services research. A body of literature is emerging around this idea that favours a particular model of partnership based on decision-maker involvement in research. This model is also gaining favour among health research funding bodies internationally. We argue that it is premature for the health services community to privilege any particular model of partnership between researchers and decision-makers. Rather a diversity of models should be conceptualized, explored in theory and practice, and evaluated. We identify seven dimensions that could be used to describe and differentiate models of partnerships for knowledge exchange and illustrate how these dimensions could be applied to analysing partnerships, using three case studies from recent and ongoing health services research partnerships in Australia.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mitchell, P., Pirkis, J., Hall, J., Haas, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008091</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Partnerships for knowledge exchange in health services research, policy and practice]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>111</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>104</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/112?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What is a priority?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/112?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>What does it mean to say that something is a &lsquo;priority&rsquo;? Priority setting is used to balance competing claims for resources, but the nature of the exercise is ambiguous. The priorities which are claimed might be for time, resources, process, rights or service. The setting of priorities might refer to importance, relative value, precedence, special status or lexical ordering. And there are different ways of ranking priorities including simple ordering, optimization, triage and satisficing. There is a fundamental distinction between preference rankings and precedence rankings, which can lead to strongly different conclusions from the same initial information. Because there is no definitive understanding of what a priority is, there can be no authoritative formula for deciding between competing claims.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Spicker, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008056</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What is a priority?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>116</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>112</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/117?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Commentary on 'What is a priority?' by Paul Spicker]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/117?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hansen, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008155</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Commentary on 'What is a priority?' by Paul Spicker]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>118</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>117</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Comment</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/119?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Author's response]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/119?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Spicker, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008164</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Author's response]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>119</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>119</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Response</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/120?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Health services research: the gradual encroachment of ideas]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/120?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>There is increasing pressure on researchers and research funding bodies to demonstrate the value of research. Simple approaches, consistent with the biomedical paradigm, based on relating the cost of research to its supposed impact are being investigated and adopted in laboratory and clinical research. While this may be appropriate in such research areas, it should not be applied to health services research which aims to alter the ways policy-makers and managers think about health, disease and health care or, as John Maynard Keynes put it, &lsquo;the gradual encroachment of ideas&rsquo;. By considering six fundamental assumptions about health care that have been successfully challenged and overturned over the past few decades, the profound and sustained impact of health services research can be demonstrated. The application of economic models of &lsquo;payback&rsquo; would fail to recognize such contributions which, in turn, could threaten future funding of health services research.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Black, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008165</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Health services research: the gradual encroachment of ideas]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>123</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>120</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/124?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Myth: In health care, more is always better]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/124?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Canadian Health Services Research Foundation]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.090908</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Myth: In health care, more is always better]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>125</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>124</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Mythbusters</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/126?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Health policy websites]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/2/126?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Light, K., Misso, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-03-18</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008185</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Health policy websites]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>128</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>126</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web?</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Can financial carrots improve health?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Oliver, A., Marteau, T. M, Ashcroft, R. E]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008132</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Can financial carrots improve health?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>2</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/2?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Health services and climate change: what can be done?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/2?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pencheon, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008147</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Health services and climate change: what can be done?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>4</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/4?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Audit of submissions: July 2007 to June 2008]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/4?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Black, N., Mays, N., Rivett-Carnac, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.141008</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Audit of submissions: July 2007 to June 2008]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>5</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/6?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The influence of professional values on the implementation of Aboriginal health policy]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/6?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>This article explores the role of professional values and the culture of the Australian health care system in facilitating and constraining the implementation of an Aboriginal health policy.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Thirty-five semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted in a case study on the implementation of the Northern Territory Preventable Chronic Disease Strategy (PCDS).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>PCDS included three major evidence-based components &ndash; primary prevention, early detection and better management. The research revealed that PCDS changed as it was implemented. The values of the medical and nursing professions favoured the implementation of the clinically-based component of PCDS &ndash; better management. But there was dissonance between the values of these dominant professional groups and the values and expertise in public health that were necessary to implement fully the primary prevention component of PCDS. While Aboriginal health workers have valuable knowledge and skills in this area, they were not accorded sufficient power and training to influence decision-making on priorities and resources, and were able to exercise only limited influence on the components of the PCDS that were implemented.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>The findings highlight the role that a myriad of values play in influencing which aspects of a policy are implemented by organizations and their agents. Comprehensive and equitable implementation of policy requires an investigation and awareness of different professional values, and an examination of whose voices will be privileged in the decision-making process. If the advances in developing evidence-based, culturally-appropriate and inclusive policy are to be translated into practice, then care needs to be taken to monitor and influence whose values are being included at what point in the policy implementation process.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lloyd, J., Wise, M., Weeramanthri, T., Nugus, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008002</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The influence of professional values on the implementation of Aboriginal health policy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>12</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/13?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Public attitudes to the storage of blood left over from routine general practice tests and its use in research]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/13?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>There is increasing international interest in DNA biobanks but relatively little evidence concerning appropriate recruitment methods for these repositories of genetic information linked to patient-specific phenotypic data. To this end, our study aimed to investigate the attitudes of members of the public recruited through general practices to the donation and storage of blood left over from routine clinical tests in general practice.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A questionnaire was mailed to 2600 individuals randomly selected from two general practice patient lists in Dundee, Scotland. Using a 7-point Likert scale, respondents rated their attitudes toward DNA biobanks in general, and procurement of blood samples specifically.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Overall, 841 (34%) of 2471 delivered questionnaires were returned. Compared with patients on the practice lists, respondents were older and more likely to be women. A majority of respondents (61%) were unequivocally positive about storing blood left over from routine tests. Despite general support for this collection method, when asked about open-ended consent, respondents expressed concern about future uses. Respondents' increasing age and level of deprivation had significant adverse effects on attitudes towards making leftover routine biological samples available for research (P = 0.013 and P = 0.034, respectively). The study had three main limitations: there was a low response rate (34%) such that respondents were not entirely respresentative of the survey population; some respondents had difficulty with the questionnaire; and the study was somewhat underpowered for some comparisons.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Despite its limitations, this first survey of a general practice population suggests that the majority would be willing to consider giving open-ended consent for the use of blood left over from routine clinical tests in general practice to be stored and used later for medical research.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Treweek, S., Doney, A., Leiman, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008016</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Public attitudes to the storage of blood left over from routine general practice tests and its use in research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>19</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/20?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['We can't get anything done because...': making sense of 'barriers' to Practice-based Commissioning]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/20?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To investigate the issues raised by participants as &lsquo;barriers&rsquo; to the development of Practice-based Commissioning (PBC) in &lsquo;early adopter&rsquo; sites in England.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Detailed case studies of five PBC consortia in three Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). Data collection included interviews with a wide range of respondents (46 in total), including general practitioners, PCT employees, Local Authority employees and patient representatives, observation of many different types of meetings (68 in total), and analysis of documents tabled at meetings and circulated at other times.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>It has been claimed that progress in developing PBC has been slow. Our respondents articulated a number of factors that they felt were holding them back, which could have been identified as &lsquo;barriers&rsquo; preventing change. The issues raised were consistent across our sites (lack of time, resources and personnel, and difficult relationships with the PCT), but observation suggested that these issues arose out of very different organizational &lsquo;sensemaking&rsquo;, and as a result the apparent &lsquo;barriers&rsquo; had different meanings in different organizational contexts.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Weick's concept of &lsquo;organizational sensemaking&rsquo; provides a useful framework within which to explore the problems encountered when implementing policy. Observational methods are a powerful tool in understanding sensemaking. The variations in sensemaking that we observed suggest that the use of &lsquo;barrier&rsquo; metaphors in descriptions of implementation problems risks homogenizing the portrayal of situations that differ greatly in reality. This implies that top-down or centrally driven solutions to such situations will often be inappropriate.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Checkland, K., Coleman, A., Harrison, S., Hiroeh, U.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008043</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA['We can't get anything done because...': making sense of 'barriers' to Practice-based Commissioning]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>26</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>20</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/27?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is it feasible to pool funds for local children's services in England? Evidence from the national evaluation of children's trust pathfinders]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/27?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To describe how funds were pooled or otherwise jointly managed by National Health Service (NHS) primary care trusts and local authorities in England. To compare expenditure on local children's services by health, education and social services.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We conducted a questionnaire survey of all 35 children's trust pathfinders, six months after they were launched, with a follow-up at 2.5 years. We also undertook an in-depth analysis of local authorities and primary care trusts, within eight pathfinder areas and three non-pathfinder areas, whereby we compared expenditure on children's services, interviewed managers and professionals and examined financial documents.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Local authorities and NHS trusts coordinated expenditure in various ways, most commonly through informal agreements and aligning budgets but also by formally pooling budgets. The latter were usually for selected services such as child and adolescent mental health services, though four children's trusts pathfinders pooled (or aligned) their budgets for all children's services. Total expenditure per child was greatest for education, lowest for social services and intermediate for health. However, it was difficult to quantify education expenditure on children with health and social care needs, and health care expenditure on children.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Sharing money for local children's services requires shared objectives, trust, and legal and accounting expertise. Several different mechanisms are permitted and many are feasible but programme budgeting for children's services could make them more effective.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lorgelly, P., Bachmann, M., Shreeve, A., Reading, R., Thorburn, J., Mugford, M., O'Brien, M., Husbands, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008052</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is it feasible to pool funds for local children's services in England? Evidence from the national evaluation of children's trust pathfinders]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>34</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>27</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/35?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Are home sampling kits for sexually transmitted infections acceptable among men who have sex with men?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/35?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>There is an urgent need to increase opportunistic screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in community settings, particularly for those who are at increased risk including men who have sex with men (MSM). The aim of this qualitative study was to explore whether home sampling kits (HSK) for multiple bacterial STIs are potentially acceptable among MSM and to identify any concerns regarding their use. This study was developed as part of a formative evaluation of HSKs.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Focus groups and one-to-one semi-structured interviews with MSM were conducted. Focus group participants (<I>n</I> = 20) were shown a variety of self-sampling materials and asked to discuss them. Individual interviewees (<I>n</I> = 24) had experience of the self-sampling techniques as part of a pilot clinical study. All data were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using a framework analysis approach.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The concept of a HSK was generally viewed as positive, with many benefits identified relating to increased access to testing, enhanced personal comfort and empowerment. Concerns about the accuracy of the test, delays in receiving the results, the possible lack of support and potential negative impact on &lsquo;others&rsquo; were raised.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>The widespread acceptability of using HSKs for the diagnosis of STIs could have important public health impacts in terms of earlier diagnosis of asymptomatic infections and thus a decrease in the rate of onward transmission. In addition, HSKs could potentially optimize the use of genitourinary medicine services and facilitate patient choice.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Llewellyn, C., Pollard, A., Smith, H., Fisher, M., on behalf of the Home Sampling Kit Study Group]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007065</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Are home sampling kits for sexually transmitted infections acceptable among men who have sex with men?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>43</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>35</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/44?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[From quasi-market to market in the National Health Service in England: what does this mean for the purchasing of health services?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/44?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The purchasing function was first developed within the British National Health Service as part of a quasi-market introduced by a Conservative government in 1990 and retained by the Labour government on coming to power in 1997. Since 2002 further reforms in England have begun to transform the quasi-market into a &lsquo;real&rsquo; market with greater diversity of supplier, including from the private sector, a payment regime designed to reward additional hospital activity and new rights for patients to choose their provider. Evidence from the quasi-market era suggests that the purchasing function made little significant impact on services for patients or shifts in the pattern of hospital provision. The new market reforms, in theory, provide an opportunity to overcome prior weaknesses in the purchasing function. As this market develops, we suggest that the purchasers should develop three new sets of skills and activities if they are to be effective: the identification of need and shaping of demand; shaping the structure of supply; and holding the market to account.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lewis, R., Smith, J., Harrison, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008054</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[From quasi-market to market in the National Health Service in England: what does this mean for the purchasing of health services?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>51</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>44</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essays</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/52?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Reconstructing continuity of care in mental health services: a multilevel conceptual framework]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/52?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Continuity of mental health care is a key issue in the organization and evaluation of services for patients with disabling chronic conditions. Over many years, health services researchers have been exploring the conceptual boundaries between continuity of care and other service characteristics. On the basis of papers published over the past decade, we argue that while conceptual consensus is growing, there is room to improve continuity measures, and the development of practical interventions is still at an early stage.</p>
<p>There is growing consensus that continuity of care is a multidimensional concept. We identified four core elements: continuous care; care of an individual patient; cross-boundary care; and care recorded objectively. These elements help clarify conceptual boundaries, and incorporate measurement guidelines. With reference to these core elements, we define types of continuity of care, including informational continuity, management continuity, relational continuity and contact continuity. In order to improve continuity of care, better understanding is needed of the complex inter-relationship of core elements and types of continuity. A multilevel perspective on continuity of care can guide research to develop and evaluate new interventions. Achieving continuity of care is hindered by the lack of standard measures and administrative data appropriate to assessing continuity. Account should be taken not only of the nature of the patient population, but also of local conditions. To address these topics and identify best practices, research should be multidisciplinary and take a comparative, naturalistic form.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wierdsma, A., Mulder, C., de Vries, S., Sytema, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008039</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Reconstructing continuity of care in mental health services: a multilevel conceptual framework]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>57</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>52</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essays</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/58?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Non-adherence to medicines: not solved but solvable]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/58?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Non-adherence to medicines is common, with convincing evidence for adverse effects on patient health and costs to health systems. At least half of reported non-adherence is intentional. An extensive body of research suggests that, while patient characteristics may contribute to this behaviour, key influences are linked to beliefs and experiences of an illness and its medicines. Characteristics of the health system such as patient&ndash;practitioner relationships and access are also significant drivers. Inadvertent effects of some policies, such as co-payments, reduce adherence. Interventions to improve adherence have not utilized available research evidence fully and are not integrated into service delivery, so have been disappointing in producing sustained behaviour change. Policies relying on patients' adherence to medicines will not be as effective as hoped if adherence is assumed rather than supported. Substantial gains could be made by patients and health systems if patients, practitioners, researchers and policy-makers worked together to improve this crucial area of health behaviour.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Elliott, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008088</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Non-adherence to medicines: not solved but solvable]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>61</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>58</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/62?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[How to find research before publication]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/14/1/62?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Light, K., Misso, K., Stirk, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-12-22</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008152</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How to find research before publication]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>64</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>62</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web?</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>