Improving research supervision in nursing

In this paper, four experienced researchers from the UK, China and Australia offer guidance in research supervision based on their experiences and the recent document, Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes [Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2003. Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes. Formal consultation. Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, HEFCE, London]. Supervision is an important aspect of not only the development of the neophyte researcher, but of academic staff and research activity in general. With increased academic accountability, good supervision should be an integral component of a quality research governance framework and resourced as such. Recommendations include: adoption of these standards; rigorous selection of research students and supervisors and development of projects; development of departmental procedures for monitoring, feedback and intellectual property; and transparency, rigour and fairness in examination procedures. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Impact of Australia's Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program on psychologists

The aim of this paper was to consider the impact on psychologists of one component of the Australian Government's Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care (BOiMHC) program, namely the Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS) component. This supports psychologists and general practitioners (GPs) to work together to provide optimal mental health care, via 102 projects being conducted by Divisions of General Practice. The paper was informed by data from five sources: a project-based minimum dataset; local project evaluation reports; a forum; a survey of projects: and a survey of Australian Psychological Society (APS) members. Taken together, the data from these sources showed that a significant number of psychologists are providing services through the projects, and the majority are finding it a positive and professionally rewarding experience. There is considerable variability regarding models of retaining, locating and referring to psychologists, and there are pros and cons associated with each. The major problem identified by psychologists is the level of remuneration. BOiMHC is currently moving into a new phase of continuation and expansion, and consideration was given to whether the data point to any changes that could be made to the ATAPS projects during this period of transition. In the main, the data suggest that the status quo should be retained, but the issue of remuneration must be addressed.

Models of psychological service provision under Australia's better outcomes in mental health care program

The Access to Allied Psychological Services component of Australia's Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program enables eligible general practitioners to refer consumers to allied health professionals for affordable, evidence-based mental health care, via 108 projects conducted by Divisions of General Practice. The current study profiled the models of service delivery across these projects, and examined whether particular models were associated with differential levels of access to services. We found: 76% of projects were retaining their allied health professionals under contract, 28% via direct employment, and 7% some other way; Allied health professionals were providing services from GPs' rooms in 63% of projects, from their own rooms in 63%, from a third location in 42%; and The referral mechanism of choice was direct referral in 51% of projects, a voucher system in 27%, a brokerage system in 24%, and a register system in 25%. Many of these models were being used in combination. No model was predictive of differential levels of access, suggesting that the approach of adapting models to the local context is proving successful.

A multiple account framework for cost-benefit analysis

The paper presents a spreadsheet-based multiple account framework for cost-benefit analysis which incorporates all the usual concerns of cost-benefit analysts such as shadow-pricing to account for market failure. distribution of net benefits. sensitivity and risk analysis, cost of public funds, and environmental effects. The approach is generalizable to a wide range of projects and situations and offers a number of advantages to both analysts and decision-makers, including transparency, a check on internal consistency, and a detailed summary of project net benefits disaggregated by stakeholder group. Of particular importance is the ease with which this framework allows for a project to be evaluated from alternative decision-making perspectives and under alternative policy scenarios where the trade-offs among the project's stakeholders can readily be identified and quantified. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.