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.

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.

Brief physical activity counselling by physiotherapists (BEHAVIOUR): protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for chronic disease. Brief physical activity counselling delivered within healthcare systems has been shown to increase physical activity levels; however, implementation efforts have mostly targeted primary healthcare and uptake has been sub-optimal. The Brief Physical Activity Counselling by Physiotherapists (BEHAVIOUR) trial aims to address this evidence-practice gap by evaluating (i) the effectiveness of a multi-faceted implementation strategy, relative to usual practice for improving the proportion of patients receiving brief physical activity counselling as part of their routine hospital-based physiotherapy care and (ii) effectiveness of brief physical activity counselling embedded in routine physiotherapy care, relative to routine physiotherapy care, at improving physical activity levels among patients receiving physiotherapy care. METHODS: Effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded economic evaluation, qualitative study and culturally adapted patient-level outcome measures. The trial will be conducted across five hospitals in a local health district in Sydney, Australia, with a lower socioeconomic and culturally diverse population. The evidence-based intervention is brief physical activity counselling informed by the 5As counselling model and behavioural theory, embedded into routine physiotherapy care. The multi-faceted strategy to support the implementation of the counselling intervention was developed with key stakeholders guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) theoretical model, and consists of clinician education and training, creating a learning collaborative, tailored strategies to address community referral barriers, team facilitation, and audit and feedback. Thirty teams of physiotherapists will be randomised to receive the multi-faceted implementation strategy immediately or after a 9-month delay. Each physiotherapy team will recruit an average of 10 patients (n=300) to collect effectiveness outcomes at baseline and 6 months. The primary effectiveness outcome is self-reported planned physical activity using the Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire, and the primary implementation outcome is reach (proportion of eligible new physiotherapy patients who receive brief physical activity counselling). Secondary effectiveness and implementation outcomes will also be collected. DISCUSSION: This project focuses on physiotherapists as health professionals with the requisite skills and patterns of practice to tackle the increasing burden of chronic disease in a high-risk population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12621000194864 . Registered on 23 February 2021.

Organisational capacity and its relationship to research use in six Australian health policy agencies.

There are calls for policymakers to make greater use of research when formulating policies. Therefore, it is important that policy organisations have a range of tools and systems to support their staff in using research in their work. The aim of the present study was to measure the extent to which a range of tools and systems to support research use were available within six Australian agencies with a role in health policy, and examine whether this was related to the extent of engagement with, and use of research in policymaking by their staff. The presence of relevant systems and tools was assessed via a structured interview called ORACLe which is conducted with a senior executive from the agency. To measure research use, four policymakers from each agency undertook a structured interview called SAGE, which assesses and scores the extent to which policymakers engaged with (i.e., searched for, appraised, and generated) research, and used research in the development of a specific policy document. The results showed that all agencies had at least a moderate range of tools and systems in place, in particular policy development processes; resources to access and use research (such as journals, databases, libraries, and access to research experts); processes to generate new research; and mechanisms to establish relationships with researchers. Agencies were less likely, however, to provide research training for staff and leaders, or to have evidence-based processes for evaluating existing policies. For the majority of agencies, the availability of tools and systems was related to the extent to which policymakers engaged with, and used research when developing policy documents. However, some agencies did not display this relationship, suggesting that other factors, namely the organisation's culture towards research use, must also be considered.

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.

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.

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy.

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks, are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use. These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work.

From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers.

Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated "highly influential" Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers' ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy was seen as fundamental by some but was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research. This study may help researchers consider their own policy-related roles, strategies and relationships in the context of increasing calls for research that serves economic and/or social goals.