Unique issues in research and evaluation in rural and remote locations: is there a place for specific research training?
BACKGROUND
There is increased interest in building research capacity in rural health research in Australia and internationally. In Australia, the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development program funded by the Australian Government has supported this move. Overall this program aims to build the quantum of primary healthcare research to underpin clinical practice, health systems improvement, and policy. In order to achieve this objective, one strand of the program aims to build research capacity among practitioners. In implementing this program in rural and remote areas of the west of South Australia, the Spencer Gulf Rural Health School has identified methodological and research design issues faced by practitioners who are researching in their communities. These issues include problems encountered in living and researching in the same location and accessing small-scale statistical information. We were interested to know whether there was interest in a formal course (Rural Research and Evaluation) that would address these issues and provide information about community-based research designs.


METHODS
A cross-sectional anonymous survey was designed and sent to 141 organisations in the health, human service, and local government sectors in regional South Australia. Respondents were asked to evaluate the demand and interest for a new course--Rural Research and Evaluation. The term 'rural' was used to refer to both rural and remote locations. Information was sought on the respondent's role in the organisation, current level of research participation, views about the proposed course content, and factors that the respondent thought would facilitate or inhibit their participation. The majority of questions were close-ended.


RESULTS
Sixty surveys were returned giving a 42.5% response rate. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. A high level of research and evaluation activity was reported with 80% of respondents undertaking research or evaluation as part of their professional role. There was also agreement that all the proposed topics were important to be included in a course. Each of the topics was ranked at four or five on a five-point scale by at least 58% of respondents. The topic 'understanding evaluation methodologies' was ranked at four or five by 85% of respondents, making it the most highly ranked topic. There was also consensus about the features respondents thought would make the course attractive for them to study. Over half (62%) of the respondents ranked having lecturers with a broad rural research background at five, very important, on a five-point scale. Almost half (48%) of the respondents ranked online delivery at five, a very important factor in making the course attractive to study.


CONCLUSIONS
Those interested in research and evaluation may have been more likely to return the survey and there may have been respondent bias in this regard. Therefore the results must be interpreted with caution. However, the level of agreement with the proposed course topics may suggest that these reflect important issues in undertaking research and evaluation in rural and remote locations. If this is the case there is value in discussion about how these issues are dealt with in different contexts in order to overcome some of the barriers to effective research.
Taylor
Judy
J
Spencer Gulf Rural Health School/UniSA Adelaide University, Whyalla Norrie, South Australia, Australia. judy.taylor@unisa.edu.au
Hughes
Cathy
C
Petkov
John
J
Williams
Marie
M
D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D003479:Curriculum; D006297:Health Services Accessibility; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D007318:Inservice Training; D008507:Medically Underserved Area; D020380:Needs Assessment; D011320:Primary Health Care; D012109:Research Support as Topic; D019035:Rural Health Services; D013021:South Australia; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires