Collaborative review of pilot projects to inform policy: A methodological remedy for pilotitis?
2008

Review of Pilot Projects for Health Policy

Sample size: 52 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Pim Kuipers, John S. Humphreys, John Wakerman, Robert Wells, Judith Jones, Philip Entwistle

Primary Institution: Centre for Remote Health

Hypothesis

Can a systematic synthesis of pilot projects inform health policy and service innovation?

Conclusion

The study found that a collaborative methodology can yield policy-relevant findings from pilot projects.

Supporting Evidence

  • The methodology engaged with actual pilot projects to ensure relevance.
  • Interviews with stakeholders provided comprehensive insights into project implementation.
  • Collaboration with policy experts enhanced the applicability of findings.
  • The study emphasized quality through multiple researchers and diverse data sources.

Takeaway

This study looked at different health projects to find out what works best, helping make better health policies.

Methodology

The study used a systematic synthesis of primary health care pilot projects, including interviews and thematic analysis.

Potential Biases

The selection of pilot projects may have over-represented successful initiatives due to reliance on published data.

Limitations

The research may have a publication bias, focusing on successful projects and neglecting less celebrated ones.

Participant Demographics

Participants included stakeholders from various roles in six exemplary rural and remote health projects.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1743-8462-5-17

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication