Search

Much has been written about evaluation utilisation from a theoretical perspective, but relatively less emphasis has been given to empirical studies that examine how the findings from given evaluations are utilised. The current study examined the nature and extent of utilisation of the findings from an ongoing evaluation of a key component of a major national primary mental health care initiative in Australia. The initiative is known as the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care (BOiMHC) program, and the component involves 111 Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS) projects, which provide mental health care to people who might otherwise have difficulty accessing such services. Nine reports have been produced during the evaluation of the ATAPS projects, and the current study explored how various stakeholders have used the first eight of these reports, via semi-structured interviews with 10 purposefully sampled respondents. The study revealed that the findings in the reports have been put to instrumental use (e.g. influencing decisions about program modification), conceptual use (e.g. furthering the knowledge base regarding the delivery of primary mental health care in general) and symbolic or legitimative use (e.g. confirming the original philosophy behind the BOiMHC program). Various reasons may account for this wide range of uses, including the fact that every effort has been made to identify all relevant stakeholders, garner their support for the evaluation from the outset, and communicate the evaluation findings to them in a relevant manner. The study provides empirical evidence that evaluation findings can be widely utilised, providing they are geared to the needs of the relevant stakeholders.

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.