Abstract
This research was aimed at exploring the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI) users’ satisfaction,
the nature of their problems and needs, including their opinions toward HSRI research construction strategies. The samples were divided into four groups of research users: executives, academics, networks, and the
general public. The data were collected by two main methods: mail questionnaires and interviews with
executives.
For the general public group, 25 percent of the 5,401 HSRI library members during the period from
2006 to the middle of the year 2007 were randomly selected; 730 of those sent questionnaires, or 56.8 percent
of the total distribution, responded. For academics, 75 percent of the 500 people who used to work with
HSRI during the previous five years were randomly selected, and 110 questionnaires, or 31.4 percent, were
received. Network groups were those who served on committees or as staff of any subsidiary, in total 120
people, and 58 questionnaires, or 48.3 percent, were received. Finally, the last sample group comprised
executives, who were HSRI board committee members, consultants, and medical doctors of related organizations, a total of 22 respondents.
The findings were as follows:
1) The utmost purpose that the general public, academics, and network groups had in using HSRI
research findings was for conducting research (their own research purposes), while most executives used
them to gain a broad perspective in expanding their view, and to support their policy-and decision-making.
2) Regarding the satisfaction towards HSRI research usage, the general public evaluated “content”, “research quality”, and “communication channel” at a high level of satisfaction; academics evaluated
“research quality” and “communication channel” at a high level of satisfaction, “content” at a high level of
satisfaction and moderate satisfaction for some content issues. Network groups evaluated “research
quality” at a high level of satisfaction, and most of them evaluated “communication channel” at a high level
of satisfaction, with moderate satisfaction applying to only one issue. “Content” was evaluated mostly at a
moderate level of satisfaction, with a high level of satisfaction for only some content issues.
All three groups evaluated the academic performance of the HSRI at a high level of satisfaction.
Most executives evaluated it at a high level of satisfaction, with the remark that the evaluation needed to
include a range or periods of time and various perspectives as well.
3) As for the communication channel in using HSRI research, it was found that, besides the HSRI
library, the general public, academics, and network groups used the Journal of Health Systems Research the
most, and radio broadcasts the least.
4) The research topic that the general public would like HSRI to develop the most is research which
supports the care of chronic and non-chronic patients, while academics and network groups need research
on the evaluation of governmental health policies. Most executives felt that HSRI should review health
systems as a whole since every system and topic is interconnected, whereas the evaluation of governmental
health policies is a topic that must be conducted regularly.
5) Data, which the general public, academics, and network groups said were available in the HSRI
database, were data about health systems research projects. Regarding website improvement, the general
public would like to have a “research analysis column” added, while academics and network groups wanted
a “health policy analysis column”. However, in the opinion of executives, if anything should be added, it
should be research synthesis, combined with health policy analysis.
6) Regarding knowledge management of the HSRI for the benefit of the public and the value of
HSRI academic work, the general public, academics, and network groups agreed that HSRI can manage
knowledge for public benefit at a high level of accomplishment. On the other hand, most executives were of
the view that HSRI has a strong point in being an organization which stimulates health systems knowledge,
and plays an important role in enabling national health policies to be put into action.
