Effective fall prevention exercise in residential aged care: an intervention component analysis from an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of fall prevention exercise programmes in residential aged care (RAC) is uncertain. This paper reports on an intervention component analysis (ICA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), from an update of a Cochrane review, to develop a theory of features of successful fall prevention exercise in RAC. METHODS: Trial characteristics were extracted from RCTs testing exercise interventions in RAC identified from an update of a Cochrane review to December 2022 (n=32). Eligible trials included RCTs or cluster RCTs in RAC, focusing on participants aged 65 or older, assessing fall outcomes with stand-alone exercise interventions. ICA was conducted on trials with >30 participants per treatment arm compared with control (n=17). Two authors coded trialists' perceptions on intervention features that may have contributed to the observed effect on falls. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the key differences between the trials which might account for positive and negative outcomes. RESULTS: 32 RCTs involving 3960 residents including people with cognitive (57%) and mobility (41%) impairments were included. ICA on the 17 eligible RCTs informed the development of a theory that (1) effective fall prevention exercise delivers the right exercise by specifically targeting balance and strength, tailored to the individual and delivered simply at a moderate intensity and (2) successful implementation needs to be sufficiently resourced to deliver structured and supervised exercise at an adequate dose. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that delivering the right exercise, sufficiently resourced, is important for preventing falls in RAC. This clinical guidance requires confirmation in larger trials.

Rethinking Barriers and Enablers in Qualitative Health Research: Limitations, Alternatives, and Enhancements.

Explorations of barriers and enablers (or barriers and facilitators) to a desired health practice, implementation process, or intervention outcome have become so prevalent that they seem to be a default in much health services and public health research. In this article, we argue that decisions to frame research questions or analyses using barriers and enablers (B&Es) should not be default. Contrary to the strengths of qualitative research, the B&Es approach often bypasses critical reflexivity and can lead to shallow research findings with poor understanding of the phenomena of interest. The B&Es approach is untheorised, relying on assumptions of linear, unidirectional processes, universally desirable outcomes, and binary thinking which are at odds with the rich understanding of context and complexity needed to respond to the challenges faced by health services and public health. We encourage researchers to develop research questions using informed deliberation that considers a range of approaches and their implications for producing meaningful knowledge. Alternatives and enhancements to the B&Es approach are explored, including using 'whole package' methodologies; theories, conceptual frameworks, and sensitising ideas; and participatory methods. We also consider ways of advancing existing research on B&Es rather than doing 'more of the same': researchers can usefully investigate how a barrier or enabler works in depth; develop and test implementation strategies for addressing B&Es; or synthesise the B&Es literature to develop a new model or theory. Illustrative examples from the literature are provided. We invite further discussion on this topic.

Promotion of physical activity by health professionals in a sample of six public hospitals: A cross sectional study.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Despite strong evidence of physical and mental health benefits from physical activity, participation is low. Physical activity promotion by health professionals can effectively increase physical activity participation. This study aimed to explore the frequency of physical activity promotion by health professionals in public hospitals with a focus on community-based structured exercise; and facilitators and barriers to such promotion. METHODS: We surveyed health professionals (n = 100) from physiotherapy, rheumatology and rehabilitation departments at six public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Most common respondent characteristics were physiotherapist (84%), female (68%), aged 25-34 years (45%) and treating older adults (45%). Almost all health professionals (94%) considered themselves physical activity role-models. Half (53%) reported promoting physical activity frequently/often to their clients. Those working with children with a physical disability (23%) were more likely to promote physical activity (Relative Risk 1.69, 95% CI 1.13-2.51, p = .03), than those working with adults or older adults. Half the physiotherapists (52%) reported providing tailored advice about increasing physical activity frequently/often, but only 20% provided advice about structured physical activity. Barriers reported by physiotherapists were lack of time (51%) and client's access to transport (61%). CONCLUSION: Only half the health professionals surveyed offered tailored physical activity advice to clients, and advice on structured physical activity was less common. SO WHAT?: Some promotion of physical activity by health professionals is occurring in hospital settings but more work is needed to embed this within clinical care.

Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy.

BACKGROUND: Use of epidemiological research in policy and practice is suboptimal, contributing to significant preventable morbidity and mortality. Barriers to the use of research evidence in policy include lack of research-policy engagement, lack of policy-relevant research, differences in policymaker and researcher practice norms, time constraints, difficulties in coordination, and divergent languages and reward systems. APPROACH AND OUTCOMES: In order to increase policy-relevant research and research uptake, we developed the output-orientated policy engagement (OOPE) model, in Australia. It integrates a foundational approach to engagement with cycles of specific activity focused around selected research outputs. Foundational elements include measures to increase recognition and valuing of policymaker expertise, emphasis on policy uptake, policy awareness of the research group's work, regular policy engagement and policy-relevant capacity-building. Specific activities include (i) identification of an "output"-usually at draft stage-and program of work which are likely to be of interest to policymakers; (ii) initial engagement focusing on sharing "preview" evidence from this output, with an invitation to provide input into this and to advise on the broader program of work; and (iii) if there is sufficient interest, formation of a researcher-policy-maker partnership to shape and release the output, as well as inform the program of work. This cycle is repeated as the relationship continues and is deepened. As well as supporting policy-informed evidence generation and research-aware policymakers, the output-orientated model has been found to be beneficial in fostering the following: a pragmatic starting place for researchers, in often large and complex policy environments; purposeful and specific engagement, encouraging shared expectations; non-transactional engagement around common evidence needs, whereby researchers are not meeting with policymakers with the expectation of receiving funding; built-in translation; time and resource efficiency; relationship-building; mutual learning; policy-invested researchers and research-invested policy-makers; and tangible policy impacts. A case study outlines how the output-orientated approach supported researcher-policymaker collaboration to generate new evidence regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cardiovascular disease risk and to apply this to national guidelines. CONCLUSION: Output-orientated policy engagement provides a potentially useful pragmatic model to catalyse and support partnerships between researchers and policymakers, to increase the policy-relevance and application of epidemiological evidence.

The Value of Mind-Body Connection in Physical Activity for Older People.

Exercise that targets balance and strength is proven to prevent falls in older age. The Successful AGEing yoga trial is the first large randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of yoga on falls in people aged ≥60 years. We conducted a realist process evaluation to explain the strong participant engagement observed using interviews (21 participants and three yoga instructors) and focus groups (12 participants and four yoga instructors). Results showed that relaxation, breathing, and yoga's mind-body connection created a satisfying internal focus on bodily sensation which was valued by participants. The mechanisms of mindfulness and embodiment appeared to facilitate this. Mindfulness and embodiment are also linked to, and enhance engagement with, other forms of physical activity. By focusing creatively on these mechanisms, we can develop a range of programs that target improvements in physical and mental health (including reducing falls and fear of falls) and appeal to older people.

Designing physical activity interventions for women aged 50+: a qualitative study of participant perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The Active Women over 50 trial tested a scalable program for increasing physical activity among women aged 50+. The program included information, activity tracker and email support. This study sought to describe the participant perspectives of the Active Women over 50 program and considerations for designing physical activity interventions for this demographic. METHODS: Women who completed the Active Women over 50 trial were purposively recruited for maximum variation in age, employment, carer responsibility, medical conditions and physical activity. Individual semi-structured interviews explored their perspectives on physical activity, Active Women over 50 program components and suggestions for future iterations. Data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Participants' capacity to be physically active was shaped by an interplay of factors. Our analysis generated four main themes relating to physical activity in general and to the program: Age and gender matters, Physical activity is social, Strategising for physical activity and the Self-responsibility discourse. At this midlife stage, physical activity participation was challenged by personal, life-stage and cultural factors, alongside a tension of the self-responsibility discourse which also impacted the program experience. Social factors and finding a suitable strategy for motivation were deemed integral aspects of being active. Future programs could consider facilitation of social networks and accountability, life-stage health information and positive framing to support self-responsibility. CONCLUSION: A range of strategies is key to supporting women over 50 to be more physically active due to the variety of circumstances and levels of agency experienced. We offer suggestions that do not need to be resource intensive but could be incorporated into a scaled program.

What helps older people persevere with yoga classes? A realist process evaluation of a COVID-19-affected yoga program for fall prevention.

BACKGROUND: Falls among older people are a major global health concern. This process evaluation investigates the experience of participants aged 60+ in a yoga program aimed at preventing falls which transitioned from studio-based classes to online classes in response to COVID-19 restrictions. We sought to understand how the Successful AGEing (SAGE) yoga program functioned in both settings and as a hybrid program, and to explain why it worked well for most participants. METHODS: Realist process evaluation was used to explore the factors that facilitated a successful transition for most participants, and to consider why it did not work for a minority. This approach develops program theories that describe which mechanisms an intervention is (or is not) activating, and how this is mediated by context to generate process outcomes. Data included interviews with participants (n = 21) and yoga instructors (n = 3), self-report feedback forms (n = 46), observation of classes and routine process measures. RESULTS: Factors that facilitated a successful transition for most participants included the quality of yoga instruction, the program format and inherent characteristics of yoga. Gains in transitioning online included continuity and greater convenience. Losses included perceived reduction in the effectiveness of yoga instruction. There were greater challenges for people struggling with pain and in disadvantageous home environments. We identified six program theories configured around 16 mechanisms: 1. It's worth the effort and 2. In expert hands (these had the same mechanisms: value expectancy, therapeutic alliance and achievement/mastery), 3. A communal experience (these mechanisms were shared experience, social connection, social comparison and peer checking), 4. Putting yoga within reach (accessibility, convenience, gratitude), 5. Building yoga habits (purposeful structure, momentum, accountability and continuity), and 6. Yoga's special properties (embodiment and mindfulness). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that online delivery of a yoga program for people aged 60+ retained much of the value of a face-to-face program for the majority of participants, and increased the value for some. The structured, communal nature of an organised group program delivered by a skilled instructor, together with yoga's intrinsic focus on mindfulness, facilitated continued engagement and perceived health benefits, despite the change in delivery mode.

"Someone's Got My Back": Older People's Experience of the Coaching for Healthy Ageing Program for Promoting Physical Activity and Preventing Falls.

The Coaching for Healthy Ageing trial evaluated the impact on physical activity (PA) and falls based on a year-long intervention in which participants aged 60+ receive a home visit, regular health coaching by physiotherapists, and a free activity monitor. This interview study describes the participants' experiences of the intervention and ideas for improvement. The authors sampled purposively for maximum variation in experiences. The data were analyzed thematically by two researchers. Most of the 32 participants reported that the intervention increased PA levels, embedded activities, and generated positivity about PA. They were motivated by quantified PA feedback, self-directed goals, and person-centered coaching. Social connectivity motivated some, but the intervention did not support this well. The intervention structure allowed participants to trial and embed activities. Autonomy and relatedness were emphasized and should be included in future program theory. The authors identified synergistic effects, likely "essential ingredients," and potential areas for improving this and similar interventions.

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health.

CONTEXT: Knowledge mobilisation (KM) is a vital strategy in efforts to improve public health policy and practice. Linear models describing knowledge transfer and translation have moved towards multi-directional and complexity-attuned approaches where knowledge is produced and becomes meaningful through social processes. There are calls for systems approaches to KM but little guidance on how this can be operationalised. This paper describes the contribution that systems thinking can make to KM and provides guidance about how to put it into action. METHODS: We apply a model of systems thinking (which focuses on leveraging change in complex systems) to eight KM practices empirically identified by others. We describe how these models interact and draw out some key learnings for applying systems thinking practically to KM in public health policy and practice. Examples of empirical studies, tools and targeted strategies are provided. FINDINGS: Systems thinking can enhance and fundamentally transform KM. It upholds a pluralistic view of knowledge as informed by multiple parts of the system and reconstituted through use. Mobilisation is conceived as a situated, non-prescriptive and potentially destabilising practice, no longer conceptualised as a discrete piece of work within wider efforts to strengthen public health but as integral to and in continual dialogue with those efforts. A systems approach to KM relies on contextual understanding, collaborative practices, addressing power imbalances and adaptive learning that responds to changing interactions between mobilisation activities and context. CONCLUSION: Systems thinking offers valuable perspectives, tools and strategies to better understand complex problems in their settings and for strengthening KM practice. We make four suggestions for further developing empirical evidence and debate about how systems thinking can enhance our capacity to mobilise knowledge for solving complex problems - (1) be specific about what is meant by 'systems thinking', (2) describe counterfactual KM scenarios so the added value of systems thinking is clearer, (3) widen conceptualisations of impact when evaluating KM, and (4) use methods that can track how and where knowledge is mobilised in complex systems.

Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sector collaborative partnerships are a vital strategy in efforts to strengthen research-informed policy and practice and may be particularly effective at addressing the complex problems associated with chronic disease prevention. However, there is still a limited understanding of how such partnerships are implemented in practice and how their implementation contributes to outcomes. This paper explores the operationalisation and outcomes of knowledge mobilisation strategies within the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre - a research collaboration between policy-makers, practitioners and researchers. METHODS: The Centre's programme model identifies six knowledge mobilisation strategies that are hypothesised to be essential for achieving its objectives. Using a mixed methods approach combining stakeholder interviews, surveys, participant feedback forms and routine process data over a 5-year period, we describe the structures, resources and activities used to operationalise these strategies and explore if and how they have contributed to proximal outcomes. RESULTS: Results showed that Centre-produced research, resources, tools and methods were impacting policy formation and funding. Policy-makers reported using new practical methodologies that were helping them to design, implement, evaluate and obtain funding for scaled-up policies and programmes, and co-creating compelling prevention narratives. Some strategies were better implemented and more impactful than others in supporting these outcomes, with variation in who they worked for. The activities used to effect engagement, capacity-building and partnership formation were mostly generating positive results, but co-production could be enhanced by greater shared decision-making. Considerably more work is needed to successfully operationalise knowledge integration and adaptive learning. CONCLUSIONS: Describing how collaborative cross-sector research partnerships are operationalised in practice, and with what effects, can provide important insights into practical strategies for establishing and growing such partnerships and for maximising their contributions to policy. Findings suggest that the Centre has many strengths but could benefit from more inclusive and transparent governance and internal processes that facilitate dialogue about roles, expectations and co-production practices.

Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers. METHODS: This study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher's exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies. RESULTS: Overall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways.

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research? A realist scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health policy-making can benefit from more effective use of research. In many policy settings there is scope to increase capacity for using research individually and organisationally, but little is known about what strategies work best in which circumstances. This review addresses the question: What causal mechanisms can best explain the observed outcomes of interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research in their work? METHODS: Articles were identified from three available reviews and two databases (PAIS and WoS; 1999-2016). Using a realist approach, articles were reviewed for information about contexts, outcomes (including process effects) and possible causal mechanisms. Strategy + Context + Mechanism = Outcomes (SCMO) configurations were developed, drawing on theory and findings from other studies to develop tentative hypotheses that might be applicable across a range of intervention sites. RESULTS: We found 22 studies that spanned 18 countries. There were two dominant design strategies (needs-based tailoring and multi-component design) and 18 intervention strategies targeting four domains of capacity, namely access to research, skills improvement, systems improvement and interaction. Many potential mechanisms were identified as well as some enduring contextual characteristics that all interventions should consider. The evidence was variable, but the SCMO analysis suggested that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising. Systems supports and platforms for cross-sector collaboration are likely to play crucial roles. Gaps in the literature are discussed. CONCLUSION: This exploratory review tentatively posits causal mechanisms that might explain how intervention strategies work in different contexts to build capacity for using research in policy-making.

Knowledge mobilisation for chronic disease prevention: the case of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary partnership research is considered one of the most effective means of facilitating research-informed policy and practice, particularly for addressing complex problems such as chronic disease. Successful research partnerships tend to be underpinned by a range of features that enable knowledge mobilisation (KMb), seeking to connect academic researchers with decision-makers and practitioners to improve the nature, quality and use of research. This paper contributes to the growing discourse on partnership approaches by illustrating how knowledge mobilisation strategies are operationalised within the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (the Centre), a national collaboration of academics, policy-makers and practitioners established to develop systems approaches for the prevention of lifestyle-related chronic diseases. METHODS: We undertook interviews with key academics, policy, and practice partners and funding representatives at the mid-point of the Centre's initial 5-year funding cycle. We aimed to explore how the Centre is functioning in practice, to develop a conceptual model of KMb within the Centre for use in further evaluation, and to identify ways of strengthening our approach to partnership research. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used to identify the key mechanisms underpinning the Centre's KMb approach. RESULTS: Six key mechanisms appeared to facilitate KMb within our Centre, namely Engagement, Partnerships, Co-production, Capacity and Skills, Knowledge Integration, and Adaptive Learning and Improvement. We developed a conceptual model that articulated these mechanisms in relation to the structures and processes that support them, as well as the Centre's goals. Findings also informed adaptations designed to strengthen the Centre. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide insights into the practical realities of operationalising KMb strategies within a research partnership. Overall, the centre is perceived to be progressing towards its KMb goals, but challenges include stakeholders from different settings understanding each other's contexts and working together effectively, and ensuring knowledge generated across different projects within the Centre is integrated into a more comprehensive understanding of chronic disease prevention policy and practice. Our conceptual model is now informing ongoing developmental evaluation activities within the Centre, where it is being tested and refined.

Policymakers' experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: a realist process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: An intervention's success depends on how participants interact with it in local settings. Process evaluation examines these interactions, indicating why an intervention was or was not effective, and how it (and similar interventions) can be improved for better contextual fit. This is particularly important for innovative trials like Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT), where causal mechanisms are poorly understood. SPIRIT was testing a multi-component intervention designed to increase the capacity of health policymakers to use research. METHODS: Our mixed-methods process evaluation sought to explain variation in observed process effects across the six agencies that participated in SPIRIT. Data collection included observations of intervention workshops (n = 59), purposively sampled interviews (n = 76) and participant feedback forms (n = 553). Using a realist approach, data was coded for context-mechanism-process effect configurations (retroductive analysis) by two authors. RESULTS: Intervention workshops were very well received. There was greater variation of views regarding other aspects of SPIRIT such as data collection, communication and the intervention's overall value. We identified nine inter-related mechanisms that were crucial for engaging participants in these policy settings: (1) Accepting the premise (agreeing with the study's assumptions); (2) Self-determination (participative choice); (3) The Value Proposition (seeing potential gain); (4) 'Getting good stuff' (identifying useful ideas, resources or connections); (5) Self-efficacy (believing 'we can do this!'); (6) Respect (feeling that SPIRIT understands and values one's work); (7) Confidence (believing in the study's integrity and validity); (8) Persuasive leadership (authentic and compelling advocacy from leaders); and (9) Strategic insider facilitation (local translation and mediation). These findings were used to develop tentative explanatory propositions and to revise the programme theory. CONCLUSION: This paper describes how SPIRIT functioned in six policy agencies, including why strategies that worked well in one site were less effective in others. Findings indicate a complex interaction between participants' perception of the intervention, shifting contextual factors, and the form that the intervention took in each site. Our propositions provide transferable lessons about contextualised areas of strength and weakness that may be useful in the development and implementation of similar studies.

Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research.

BACKGROUND: Capacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research. METHODS: We used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales). RESULTS: Response rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal. CONCLUSIONS: Initial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation.

The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation's capacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations' research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations' capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership). METHOD: We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe. RESULTS: The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4). CONCLUSION: We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations' capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development.

Research impact: neither quick nor easy.

Greenhalgh and Fahy's paper about the 2014 Research Excellence Framework provides insights into the challenges of assessing research impact. Future research assessment exercises should consider how best to include measurement of indirect and non-linear impact and whether efforts in knowledge transfer and co-production should be explicitly recognised. Greenhalgh and Fahy's findings also demonstrate that the structure of the assessment exercise can privilege certain kinds of research and may therefore miss some research that has a high impact on policy and practice. There are a growing number of courses, tools, and funding models to assist researchers in making an impact, although as yet there is little evidence about whether these approaches work in practice. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/232.

Reaching "an audience that you would never dream of speaking to": influential public health researchers' views on the role of news media in influencing policy and public understanding.

While governments and academic institutions urge researchers to engage with news media, traditional academic values of public disengagement have inhibited many from giving high priority to media activity. In this interview-based study, the authors report on the views about news media engagement and strategies used by 36 peer-voted leading Australian public health researchers in 6 fields. The authors consider their views about the role and importance of media in influencing policy, their reflections on effective or ineffective media communicators, and strategies used by these researchers about how to best retain their credibility and influence while engaging with the news media. A willingness and capacity to engage with the mass media was seen as an essential attribute of influential public health researchers.

Health professionals' involvement in volunteering their professional skills: a scoping review.

Background: Volunteering positively affects overall health of both volunteers and recipients through social interaction, support and physical activity. Health professionals' volunteering has considerable potential to improve health outcomes in communities. Objectives: This study aimed to summarize published scientific literature regarding volunteering by health professionals. Method: Medine, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHLdatabases were searched to identify eligible studies published between 2010 and 2023. Data on study methods and findings were extracted and synthesized. Results: Of the 144 eligible studies, 80 (56%) used quantitative methods, 46 (32%) used qualitative, 18 (12%) used mixed methods and 8 (6%) were interventional. Doctors (74 studies, 51%) and nurses (n = 40, 28%) were the professions with most reports of volunteering. Half the studies were from USA (n = 77, 53%), followed by UK (n = 19, 13%), Canada (n = 12, 8%), and Australia/New Zealand (n = 11, 8%). International volunteering in low-to-middle-income countries was reported in 64 studies (44%). Providing service and training were the dominant types of activities (n = 90, 62.5%), with health promotion reported in only 4 studies (3%). Studies reported positive impact from volunteering, both professionally and personally. Time and family commitments were the main barriers. Enablers, barriers and impact were summarized in a socio-ecological map. Conclusion: Health professionals volunteer in diverse activities and report multifaceted benefits. Studies of volunteering interventions could enable new, sustainable approaches to health promotion.

Experiences of Older Adults, Physiotherapists, and Aged Care Staff in the TOP UP Telephysiotherapy Program: Interview Study of the TOP UP Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth provides opportunities for older adults to access health care. However, limited research exists on the use of telehealth within aged care services, particularly regarding physiotherapy-led fall prevention and mobility programs. Understanding the experiences and interactions of older adults, physiotherapists, and aged care service providers is crucial for the scale-up and sustainability of such essential programs. The TOP UP study, a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial in aged care, used a supported multidisciplinary telephysiotherapy model to motivate older adults to engage in exercises to improve mobility and reduce falls. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative substudy aims to achieve 2 primary objectives: to describe the experiences and acceptability of the TOP UP intervention for older people, physiotherapists, and aged care support workers and managers and to gain an in-depth understanding of program implementation. METHODS: A purposive recruitment strategy was used to select 18 older adults who participated in the TOP UP intervention, ensuring variation in age, gender, residential status (home or residential aged care), geographic location, and cognitive levels. In addition, 7 physiotherapists, 8 aged care support workers, and 6 managers from 7 different aged care provider partners participated in this study. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore stakeholders' experiences with the TOP UP program, gather suggestions for improvement, and obtain insights for the future implementation of similar telephysiotherapy programs. The interview framework and coding processes were informed by behavior changes and implementation frameworks. Data were analyzed using an abductive approach, informed by 2 behavioral change theories (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior Model and Self-Determination Theory) and the Nonadoption, Abandonment and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies framework. RESULTS: All participants (n=39) reported high levels of acceptability for the TOP UP program and cited multiple perceived benefits. The thematic analysis generated 6 main themes: telephysiotherapy expands opportunity; tailored physiotherapy care with local support enhances motivation; engaging, older adult-friendly educational resources build capability; flexible reablement approach fosters autonomy; telephysiotherapy is safe, effective, and acceptable for many; and organizational commitment is required to embed telehealth. The motivation to exercise was enhanced by Zoom's convenience, use of tailored web-based exercise resources, and companionable local support. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the inherent value of telephysiotherapy in aged care, emphasizing the need for investment in staff training, local support, and older adult-friendly resources in future telephysiotherapy iterations. TOP UP represents a convenient and flexible web-based care model that empowers many older adults to receive sustainable, high-quality care precisely when and where they need it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN 1261000734864; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12621000734864.