Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

BACKGROUND: Despite that stakeholder participation in evidence synthesis could result in more useful outcomes, there are few examples of processes that actively involve them in synthesis work. Techniques are needed that engage diverse stakeholders as equal partners in knowledge co-production. The aims of this paper are to describe an innovative participatory process of synthesising a large body of academic research products and compare the findings of the participatory process against two traditional approaches to synthesis: a rapid review and a structured review. METHODS: First, a rapid synthesis of all research outputs (n = 86) was conducted by researchers with in-depth knowledge of the collaboration's research. Second, a team of researchers and service providers conducted a structured synthesis of seventy-eight peer-reviewed articles and reports generated by the collaboration. Fifty-five publications were brought forward for further synthesis in part three, a facilitated participatory synthesis. Finally, we explored the value added by the participatory method by comparing findings generated across the three synthesis approaches. RESULTS: Twelve researchers and 11 service providers/policy partners-8 self-identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander-participated in two facilitated workshops (totalling 4 h). Workshop activities engaged participants in reviewing publication summaries, identifying key findings, and evoked review, discussion and refinement. The process explicitly linked experiential knowledge to citations of academic research, clearly connecting the two knowledge types. In comparing the findings generated across all three methods we found mostly consistencies; the few discrepancies did not contradict but gave deeper insights into statements created by the other methods. The participatory synthesis generated the most, detailed, and unique findings, and contextual insights about the relevance of the key messages for practice. CONCLUSION: The participatory synthesis engaged stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and skillsets in synthesising a large body of evidence in a relatively short time. The participatory approach produced findings comparable to traditional synthesis methods while extending knowledge and identifying lessons most relevant for the participants who, ultimately, are the end users of the research. This process will interest other large-scale research collaborations seeking to engage stakeholders in evidence synthesis.

Supporting reorientation of health services in Indigenous Australian communities: the health promotion systems assessment tool.

Few tools and mechanisms exist to assist the reorientation of health services, especially in the Indigenous Australian health context; where improving health status and life expectancy is a priority. We developed a health promotion systems assessment tool (HPSAT) to provide health services with the information and support they need to drive health system change. Tool development occurred using a participatory, iterative approach that included a literature review, expert input by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders and annual group workshops in four Indigenous Australian primary health care (PHC) services. Four health system components: (i) organizational environment; (ii) service delivery systems; (iii) information systems and decision support; and (iv) adaptability and integration, form the framework of the tool. A scoring system monitors system change over time. The HPSAT provides a constructive framework to support health services to collectively assess and support reorientation in Indigenous Australian PHC services. Participation of key stakeholders with an intimate knowledge about the local context was pivotal in developing a user-friendly and fit-for-purpose tool. Maximum benefits of the tool are likely to be gained when used as part of a continuous quality improvement intervention.

Primary health care services are important providers of health promotion approaches. In Australia, the health status and life expectancy of Indigenous peoples is much lower than that of the general population. Meeting Indigenous peoples' acute and chronic care needs can influence PHC service delivery models. Few tools and mechanism are available to support the reorientation of Indigenous Australian PHC services from an acute and chronic care model to a more comprehensive model, with greater emphasis on health promotion and prevention. This article describes the development and trialling of a tool providing Indigenous Australian PHC services with the information and support they need to reorient their health systems towards health promotion. The health promotion systems assessment tool provides a useful framework to facilitate collective appraisal of service delivery models and to identify opportunities for health system reorientation in Indigenous Australian PHC context. The tool has the potential to benefit many other health services seeking to reorient their systems towards health promotion.

Network evaluation of an innovation platform in continuous quality improvement in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare.

BACKGROUND: From 2014 to 2019, the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement (CRE-IQI) was evaluated as an innovation platform focusing on continuous quality improvement in Indigenous Australian primary healthcare. Although social network analysis (SNA) is a recognized method for evaluating the functioning, collaboration and effectiveness of innovation platforms, applied research is limited. This study applies SNA to evaluate the CRE-IQI's functioning as an innovation platform. METHODS: Two surveys (2017, 2019) were conducted using social survey and network methods. Survey items covered respondent characteristics, their perceptions of the CRE-IQI's performance, and its impact and sociometric relationships. Members' relationship information was captured for the CRE-IQI at three time points, namely start (retrospectively), midpoint and final year, on three network types (knew, shared information, collaborated). SNA software was used to compute standard network metrics including diameter, density and centrality, and to develop visualizations. Survey and network results were addressed in a workshop held by members to develop improvement strategies. RESULTS: The response rate was 80% in 2017 and 65% in 2019 (n = 49 and 47, respectively). Between 2017 and 2019, respondents' mean ratings of the CRE-IQI's functioning and achievements in meeting its goals were sustained. They perceived the CRE-IQI as multidisciplinary, having effective management and governance, and incorporating Indigenous research leadership, representation and ways of working. Respondents recognized high levels of trust amongst members, rated "good communication and coordination with participants" highly, and "facilitating collaboration" as the CRE's most strongly recognized achievement. In collaboration and information-sharing networks, average path length remained low in 2017 and 2019, indicating good small-world network properties for relaying information. On average, respondents shared information and collaborated with more CRE members in 2017 than 2019. However, in both 2017 and 2019 there were new collaborations and information-sharing outside of direct collaborations. CRE-IQI outcomes included: evidence generation; knowledge transfer and skills development in quality improvement; research capacity-building, career development; mentoring; grant support; development of new projects; health service support; and policy impact. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the utility of network analysis in evaluating the functioning, and collaboration, at the individual, organizational and health system levels, of an innovation platform, and adds to our understanding of factors enabling successful innovation platforms.

Using developmental evaluation to enhance continuous reflection, learning and adaptation of an innovation platform in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare.

Effective efforts to strengthen health systems need diverse, multi-stakeholder networks working together on complex or 'wicked' problems such as prevention and control of chronic diseases, solutions to which go beyond the role and capability of one organisation. The contextual complexities inherent in 'wicked' problems mean that solutions warrant a systems approach that encompasses innovation and new ways of thinking about, facilitating and implementing collective decision-making processes and change practices.Innovation platforms are a mechanism for facilitating communication and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, promoting joint action and stimulating innovation. Developmental evaluation is an approach that is increasingly being used to evaluate innovative and emergent programmes and projects, as it enables evaluators to provide real-time feedback so that evaluation findings can be used to guide development and adaptations. Developmental evaluation emphasises learning and adaptation, and aligns well with the implementation of innovation platforms that have continuous reflection, learning and adaptation as a specific design principle.Here, we outline our rationale for applying a developmental evaluation to enhance the formation, functioning and outcomes of an innovation platform aimed at accelerating and strengthening large-scale quality improvement efforts in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. We provide examples to explain how the developmental evaluation findings were used for adaptation of the innovation platform and assess to what extent our application of developmental evaluation was consistent with, and reflective of, its essential principles.Our evaluation aligned strongly with the principles of developmental evaluation, and the approach we took was well suited to situations with a developmental purpose, innovation niche and complexity such as innovation platforms. As a result, along with the increasing interest in multi-stakeholder platforms (e.g. innovation platforms) and the inherent challenges with evaluating these complex networks, we anticipate our use of this approach being of interest globally.

Using developmental evaluation to support knowledge translation: reflections from a large-scale quality improvement project in Indigenous primary healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Developmental evaluation is a growing area of evaluation practice, advocated for informing the adaptive development of change initiatives in complex social environments. The utilisation focus, complexity perspective and systems thinking of developmental evaluation suggest suitability for evaluating knowledge translation initiatives in primary healthcare. However, there are few examples in the literature to guide its use in these contexts and in Indigenous settings. In this paper, we reflect on our experience of using developmental evaluation to implement a large-scale knowledge translation research project in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. Drawing on principles of knowledge translation and key features of developmental evaluation, we debate the key benefits and challenges of applying this approach to engage diverse stakeholders in using aggregated quality improvement data to identify and address persistent gaps in care delivery. DISCUSSION: The developmental evaluation enabled the team to respond to stakeholder feedback and apply learning in real-time to successfully refine theory-informed research and engagement processes, tailor the presentation of findings to stakeholders and context, and support the project's dissemination and knowledge co-production aim. It thereby contributed to the production of robust, useable research findings for informing policy and system change. The use of developmental evaluation appeared to positively influence stakeholders' use of the project reports and their responses to the findings. Challenges included managing a high volume of evaluation data and multiple evaluation purposes, balancing facilitative sense-making processes and change with task-focused project management, and lack of experience in using this evaluation approach. Use of an embedded evaluator with facilitation skills and background knowledge of the project helped to overcome these challenges, as did similarities observed between features of developmental evaluation and continuous quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Our experience of developmental evaluation confirmed our expectations of the potential value of this approach for strengthening improvement interventions and implementation research, and particularly for adapting healthcare innovations in Indigenous settings. In our project, developmental evaluation successfully encompassed evaluation, project adaptation, capacity development and knowledge translation. Further work is warranted to apply this approach more widely to improve primary healthcare initiatives and outcomes, and to evaluate implementation research.

Application of the i-PARIHS framework for enhancing understanding of interactive dissemination to achieve wide-scale improvement in Indigenous primary healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Participatory research approaches improve the use of evidence in policy, programmes and practice. Few studies have addressed ways to scale up participatory research for wider system improvement or the intensity of effort required. We used the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to analyse implementation of an interactive dissemination process engaging stakeholders with continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from Australian Indigenous primary healthcare centres. This paper reports lessons learnt about scaling knowledge translation research, facilitating engagement at a system level and applying the i-PARIHS framework to a system-level intervention. METHODS: Drawing on a developmental evaluation of our dissemination process, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of data from project records and interviews with 30 stakeholders working in Indigenous health in different roles, organisation types and settings in one Australian jurisdiction and with national participants. Content-analysed data were mapped onto the i-PARIHS framework constructs to examine factors contributing to the success (or otherwise) of the process. RESULTS: The dissemination process achieved wide reach, with stakeholders using aggregated CQI data to identify system-wide priority evidence-practice gaps, barriers and strategies for improvement across the scope of care. Innovation characteristics influencing success were credible data, online dissemination and recruitment through established networks, research goals aligned with stakeholders' interest in knowledge-sharing and motivation to improve care, and iterative phases of reporting and feedback. The policy environment and infrastructure for CQI, as well as manager support, influenced participation. Stakeholders who actively facilitated organisational- and local-level engagement were important for connecting others with the data and with the externally located research team. Developmental evaluation was facilitative in that it supported real-time adaptation and tailoring to stakeholders and context. CONCLUSIONS: A participatory research process was successfully implemented at scale without intense facilitation efforts. These findings broaden the notion of facilitation and support the utility of the i-PARIHS framework for planning participatory knowledge translation research at a system level. Researchers planning similar interventions should work through established networks and identify organisational- or local-level facilitators within the research design. Further research exploring facilitation in system-level interventions and the use of interactive dissemination processes in other settings is needed.

Improving preventive health care in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Like other colonised populations, Indigenous Australians experience poorer health outcomes than non-Indigenous Australians. Preventable chronic disease is the largest contributor to the health differential between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, but recommended best-practice preventive care is not consistently provided to Indigenous Australians. Significant improvement in health care delivery could be achieved through identifying and minimising evidence-practice gaps. Our objective was to use clinical audit data to create a framework of the priority evidence-practice gaps, strategies to address them, and drivers to support these strategies in the delivery of recommended preventive care. METHODS: De-identified preventive health clinical audit data from 137 primary health care (PHC) centres in five jurisdictions were analysed (n = 17,108 audited records of well adults with no documented major chronic disease; 367 system assessments; 2005-2014), together with stakeholder survey data relating to interpretation of these data, using a mixed-methods approach (n = 152 responses collated in 2015-16). Stakeholders surveyed included clinicians, managers, policy officers, continuous quality improvement (CQI) facilitators and academics. Priority evidence-practice gaps and associated barriers, enablers and strategies to address the gaps were identified and reported back through two-stages of consultation. Further analysis and interpretation of these data were used to develop a framework of strategies and drivers for health service improvement. RESULTS: Stakeholder identified priorities were: following-up abnormal test results; completing cardiovascular risk assessments; timely recording of results; recording enquiries about living conditions, family relationships and substance use; providing support for clients identified with emotional wellbeing risk; enhancing systems to enable team function and continuity of care. Drivers identified for improving care in these areas included: strong Indigenous participation in the PHC service; appropriate team structure and function to support preventive care; meaningful use of data to support quality of care and CQI; and corporate support functions and structures. CONCLUSION: The framework should be useful for guiding development and implementation of barrier-driven, tailored interventions for primary health care service delivery and policy contexts, and for guiding further research. While specific strategies to improve the quality of preventive care need to be tailored to local context, these findings reinforce the requirement for multi-level action across the system. The framework and findings may be useful for similar purposes in other parts of the world, with appropriate attention to context in different locations.

Follow-up of Indigenous-specific health assessments - a socioecological analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patterns of uptake of Indigenous-specific health assessments and associated follow-up items, and examine the barriers and enablers to delivery and billing of follow-up over the first 3 years of implementation of the Indigenous Chronic Disease Package (ICDP). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We used a socioecological approach to analyse data derived from the Sentinel Sites Evaluation of the ICDP - with data from 24 sites across Australia. Administrative data (1 May 2009 to 30 May 2012) and program data (1 March 2010 to 30 May 2012) were provided by the Department of Health. Data on barriers and enablers to follow-up of health assessments were obtained from community focus groups, in-depth interviews and discussions with key informants (1 November 2010 to 30 December 2012). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly number of Medicare Benefits Schedule items claimed for Indigenous-specific health services and follow-up; qualitative data on enablers and barriers categorised according to patient, patient-health service relationship, health service or organisation, community and policy environment levels or influence. RESULTS: There was an increase in the uptake of health assessments, but relatively limited delivery of follow-up care and billing for Indigenous-specific follow-up items. Follow-up was constrained by factors that operated at various levels: patient, interpersonal, health service, community and policy. Constraints included practitioners' lack of awareness of item numbers, staffing, poor state of clinical information systems, billing against non-Indigenous-specific items or more general follow-up items, emphasis on health assessments with less attention to requirements for follow-up, limited capacity to arrange and facilitate follow-up, and communication and transport challenges for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Work is required across various levels of the system to address barriers to follow-up care. Enhancing follow-up care is vital to achieving health benefits from the large financial and human resource investment in health assessments.

Evaluating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health promotion activities using audit and feedback.

Indigenous primary health care (PHC) services have been identified as exemplary models of comprehensive PHC; however, many practitioners in these services struggle to deliver effective health promotion. In particular, practitioners have limited capacity and resources to evaluate health promotion activities. Best practice health promotion is important to help address the lifestyle and wider factors that impact on the health of people and communities. In this paper, we report on the acceptability and feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the design of health promotion activities in four Indigenous PHC services in the Northern Territory. The approach draws on a popular continuous quality improvement technique known as audit and feedback (A&F), in which information related to best practice is gathered through the use of a standardised audit tool and fed back to practitioners. The A&F approach has been used successfully to improve clinical service delivery in Indigenous PHC; however, the technique has had limited use in health promotion. The present study found that facilitated participatory processes were important for the collection of locally relevant information and for contributing to improving PHC practitioners' knowledge and understanding of best practice health promotion.

Reflecting on the quality of a methodologically pluralist evaluation of a large-scale Indigenous health research collaboration in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous communities worldwide lead calls for all evaluations of research, programmes and policies affecting their communities to reflect the values, priorities and perspectives of the Indigenous peoples and communities involved. Tools, such as the Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT), are available to assess research quality through an Indigenous cultural lens. Good evaluation requires that evaluation efforts be evaluated. We found that critical reflection on the quality of evaluations from an Indigenous perspective is largely absent from the published literature. To ensure that we strive for quality in evaluation as determined by Indigenous people with whom we work, we examined the quality of our own evaluation of an Indigenous health research collaboration by conducting a reflexive dialogue. METHODS: The QAT was used to assess our evaluation according to Indigenous health research principles. Our qualitative study used analytical coautoethnography to generate data through a series of reflexive dialogue sessions with Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the research collaboration, using the QAT criteria as discussion prompts. Our ideas and reflections were compared and contrasted through a collaborative and iterative writing process, multiple review cycles and discussions. RESULTS: We documented our findings against the QAT framework. We found examples that each QAT principle had, to some extent, been adhered to, but constantly needed to assess whether the principles were fully achieved to our satisfaction. Strengths of the evaluation included being adaptable and responsive to emerging issues for the research collaboration, while areas for improvement included more Indigenous leadership of, and involvement in, evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Although reflexive evaluation practice is not always comfortable, it does provide an opportunity to generate insights for improvement. Reflecting as we did-in a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous colleagues-enabled deeper insights and meaning. We anticipate that our process models how other research in Indigenous contexts might better advance ethical, quality Indigenous research through working in collaboration with Indigenous researchers and communities.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners implementing health assessments for people with intellectual disability: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: People with intellectual disability experience poorer health outcomes compared with the general population, partly due to the difficulties of accessing preventive care in primary care settings. There is good evidence that structured annual health assessments can enhance quality of care for people with intellectual disability, and their use has become recommended policy in several high-income countries. However, uptake remains low. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) offers a conceptual structure for understanding barriers to implementation and has been usefully applied to inform implementation of health assessments for other high-need groups, but not for people with intellectual disability. We conducted a scoping review of the literature, using the TDF, to identify barriers and facilitators influencing primary care practitioners' implementation of annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability as part of routine primary care practice. METHODS: This study was conducted according to the JBI methodological approach for scoping reviews. Searches were conducted in Medline (OVID-SP), Embase (OVID-SP), PsycINFO (OVID-SP), CINHAL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate) for relevant peer-reviewed publications up to May 2023. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and mapped to the TDF to identify relevant barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: The search yielded 1057 publications, with 21 meeting the inclusion criteria. Mapping data to the TDF, the most frequently identified domains were (a) environmental context and resources, (b) skills, (c) knowledge and (d) emotion. Predominant factors impacting on implementation included practitioners' lack of awareness about health assessments and their identified benefits; inadequate training and experience by practitioners in the delivery of health assessments for people with intellectual disability; insufficient time to provide health assessments; and practitioner burnout. CONCLUSION: Using a theory-informed behavioural framework, our review aids understanding of the barriers and facilitators to improving the implementation of health assessments as part of routine care for people with intellectual disability. However, there is a clear need for further qualitative research to examine the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding implementation barriers and facilitators to health assessments in general, including views from practitioners who are not currently undertaking health assessments.

Culturally Informed Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Evaluations: A Scoping Review.

Rigorous and effective evaluations inform policy and service delivery and create evidence of program impacts and outcomes for the communities they are designed to support. Genuine engagement of communities is a key feature of effective evaluation, building trust and enhancing relevancy for communities and providing meaningful outcomes and culturally relevant findings. This applies to Indigenous peoples' leadership and perspectives when undertaking evaluations on programs that involve Indigenous communities. This systematic scoping review sought to explore the characteristics of culturally informed evaluations and the extent of their application in Australia, including the use of specific evaluation tools and types of community engagement. Academic and grey literature were searched between 2003 and 2023, with 57 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Over time, there was an increase in the number of culturally informed evaluations undertaken, predominantly in the health and wellbeing sector. Around a quarter used a tool specifically developed for Indigenous evaluations. Half of the publications included Indigenous authorship; however, most studies lacked detail on how evaluations engaged with communities. This review highlights the need for further development of evaluation tools and standardised reporting to allow for shared learnings and improvement in culturally safe evaluation practices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Collaboration and knowledge generation in an 18-year quality improvement research programme in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare: a coauthorship network analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Though multidisciplinary research networks support the practice and effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) programmes, their characteristics and development are poorly understood. In this study, we examine publication outputs from a research network in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare (PHC) to assess to what extent the research network changed over time. SETTING: Australian CQI research network in Indigenous PHC from 2002 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Authors from peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by the network. DESIGN: Coauthor networks across four phases of the network (2002-2004; 2005-2009; 2010-2014; 2015-2019) were constructed based on author affiliations and examined using social network analysis methods. Descriptive characteristics included organisation types, Indigenous representation, gender, student authorship and thematic research trends. RESULTS: We identified 128 publications written by 308 individual authors from 79 different organisations. Publications increased in number and diversity over each funding phase. During the final phase, publication outputs accelerated for organisations, students, project officers, Indigenous and female authors. Over time there was also a shift in research themes to encompass new clinical areas and social, environmental or behavioural determinants of health. Average degree (8.1), clustering (0.81) and diameter (3) indicated a well-connected network, with a core-periphery structure in each phase (p≤0.03) rather than a single central organisation (degree centralisation=0.55-0.65). Academic organisations dominated the core structure in all funding phases. CONCLUSION: Collaboration in publications increased with network consolidation and expansion. Increased productivity was associated with increased authorship diversity and a decentralised network, suggesting these may be important factors in enhancing research impact and advancing the knowledge and practice of CQI in PHC. Publication diversity and growth occurred mainly in the fourth phase, suggesting long-term relationship building among diverse partners is required to facilitate participatory research in CQI. Despite improvements, further work is needed to address inequities in female authorship and Indigenous authorship.

Respect Is Central: A Critical Review of Implementation Frameworks for Continuous Quality Improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Services.

Background: Primary health care (PHC) services are complex systems, shaped by an interplay of factors at individual, organisational and broader system levels. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC services, closer relationships with the people they serve, local knowledge of community, and cultural awareness are critical. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has proven to be an effective process for identification of priority issues in health care delivery and for instigating the design, implementation and evaluation of improvement interventions in these settings. However, wide-scale variation in care quality persists partly due to the mismatch between CQI interventions and context. Methods: This critical review of implementation frameworks for CQI in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care was conducted in two phases: (1) a review of primary published implementation frameworks used in PHC contexts, and (2) a comparison of key features of these frameworks with quality concepts identified by high-improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC services in remote Australia. Results: We found nine primary implementation frameworks previously used in PHC contexts guiding interventions within and between macro (broader contextual) level; meso (health service) level; and micro (community and inter-personal) level systems. There was commonality between these frameworks and key quality concepts in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC. However, none of the frameworks covered all concepts with rare consideration of communities driving health improvement, two-way learning (integrating cultural knowledge into healthcare provision), and caring staff-engendering trusting relationships with community enacted through respect. Conclusion: Respect, as a secret essence, privileges the importance of culture, and is an essential element of CQI implementation frameworks for positive change in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC services. It is essential to work with communities to design workforce models that grow a caring stable workforce to ensure improvements in quality of care that are effective for their context.

Utility of the AHRQ Learning Collaboratives Taxonomy for Analyzing Innovations from an Australian Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Despite the proliferation of learning collaborations such as innovation platforms, the factors contributing to their success or failure are rarely documented. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality learning collaboratives taxonomy provides a framework for understanding how such collaborations work in different settings according to four primary elements: innovation, communication, time, and social systems. This study applied the taxonomy to assess an innovation platform and the utility of applying the taxonomy. METHODS: The study focus was a five-year national research collaboration operating as an innovation platform to strengthen primary health care quality improvement efforts for Indigenous Australians. The study team analyzed project records, reports and publications, and interviews that were conducted with 35 stakeholders. Data were mapped retrospectively against the taxonomy domains and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: The taxonomy proved useful in understanding how and why the innovation platform generated innovations. It revealed that time was particularly important, both to see innovations through and to establish a social system that enabled interconnectivity between members. However, the taxonomy did not provide useful guidance on identifying the types of innovations from the collaboration or the importance of a culture of continuous adaptation and learning. The study also found that the primary and secondary elements of the taxonomy were not discrete, which meant that it was difficult to align themes with only one element. CONCLUSION: To improve the utility of the taxonomy, several elaborations are proposed, including reconfiguring it to a more dynamic form that recognizes the interconnections and links between the elements.

Principles guiding ethical research in a collaboration to strengthen Indigenous primary healthcare in Australia: learning from experience.

INTRODUCTION: Indigenous communities worldwide are leading calls for all research involving Indigenous people to be underpinned by values and principles articulated by them. Many researchers are explicitly adopting these principles to guide what, where, how and when research is undertaken with Indigenous people. With critical reflection to support the implementation of such principles largely absent from published literature, this paper explores both the implementation of, and the outcomes from a set of guiding principles used in a large-scale Australian research collaboration to improve Indigenous health. METHODS: In this inductive qualitative study, we adopted a principles-focused evaluation approach. Based on interviews with 35 actors in the collaboration and a review of project documents, we generated themes that were then iteratively discussed, refined and categorised into (1) 'strategies'-activities by which implementation of our guiding principles were recognised; (2) 'outcomes'-results seen from implementing the principles and (3) 'conditions'-aspects of the context that facilitated and constrained implementation of the principles. RESULTS: Respondents found it difficult to articulate how the guiding principles were actually implemented, and frequently referred to them as part of the fabric of the collaboration. They viewed the set of principles as mutually reinforcing, and as providing a rudder for navigating complexity and conflict. Implementation of the principles occurred through five strategies-honouring the principles; being dynamic and adaptable; sharing and dispersing leadership; collaborating purposefully and adopting a culture of mutual learning. Outcomes included increased Indigenous leadership and participation; the ability to attract principled and values-driven researchers and stakeholders, and the development of trusting and respectful relationships. The conditions that facilitated the implementation of the principles were collaborating over time; an increasing number of Indigenous researchers and taking an 'innovation platform' approach. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that principles guiding collaborations are valuable in providing a focus, direction and a way of working together when they are collaboratively developed, hold genuine meaning for all members and are implemented within a culture of continuous critical reflection, learning and adaptation, with ongoing reinterpretation of the principles over time.

Emerging evidence of the value of health assessments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the primary healthcare setting.

The launch of the third edition of the National guide to preventive health assessment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in March 2018 heralds a renewed commitment to improving the delivery of preventive care, and should reinvigorate discussions on the effectiveness of Indigenous-specific health assessments and how best to implement them. A substantial body of evidence on adherence to guideline-recommended care has been generated through a research-based continuous quality improvement (CQI) initiative conducted between 2010 and 2014. The research, which involved clinical audits of more than 17000 client records and 119 systems assessments relating to preventive care in 137 Indigenous primary healthcare centres across Australia, shows that a structured CQI program can improve the delivery of preventive health assessments and use of evidence-based guidelines. However, program implementation has also seen the emergence of new challenges. This paper reflects on four major lessons from this collaborative program of applied research that will lead to more effective delivery of preventive care.