The MOHMQuit (Midwives and Obstetricians Helping Mothers to Quit Smoking) Trial: protocol for a stepped-wedge implementation trial to improve best practice smoking cessation support in public antenatal care services.

BACKGROUND: Smoking during pregnancy is the most important preventable cause of adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet smoking cessation support (SCS) is inconsistently provided. The MOMHQUIT intervention was developed to address this evidence-practice gap, using the Behaviour Change Wheel method by mapping barriers to intervention strategies. MOHMQuit includes systems, leadership and clinician elements. This implementation trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MOHMQuit in improving smoking cessation rates in pregnant women in public maternity care services in Australia; test the mechanisms of action of the intervention strategies; and examine implementation outcomes. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised design will be used. Implementation of MOHMQuit will include reinforcing leadership investment in SCS as a clinical priority, strengthening maternity care clinicians' knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes towards the provision of SCS, and clinicians' documentation of guideline-recommended SCS provided during antenatal care. Approximately, 4000 women who report smoking during pregnancy will be recruited across nine sites. The intervention and its implementation will be evaluated using a mixed methods approach. The primary outcome will be 7-day point prevalence abstinence at the end of pregnancy, among pregnant smokers, verified by salivary cotinine testing. Continuous data collection from electronic medical records and telephone interviews with postpartum women will occur throughout 32 months of the trial to assess changes in cessation rates reported by women, and SCS documented by clinicians and reported by women. Data collection to assess changes in clinicians' knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes will occur prior to and immediately after the intervention at each site, and again 6 months later. Questionnaires at 3 months following the intervention, and semi-structured interviews at 6 months with maternity service leaders will explore leaders' perceptions of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptations and fidelity of delivery of the MOHMQuit intervention. Structural equation modelling will examine causal linkages between the strategies, mediators and outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness of a multi-level implementation intervention to support policy decisions; and evidence regarding mechanisms of action of the intervention strategies (how the strategies effected outcomes) to support further theoretical developments in implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000167763, registered February 2nd 2022.

Tensions and Paradoxes of Scaling Up: A Critical Reflection on Physical Activity Promotion.

BACKGROUND: Achieving system-level, sustainable 'scale-up' of interventions is the epitome of successful translation of evidence-based approaches in population health. In physical activity promotion, few evidence-based interventions reach implementation at scale or become embedded within systems for sustainable health impact. This is despite the vast published literature describing efficacy studies of small-scale physical activity interventions. Research into physical activity scale-up (through case-study analysis; evaluations of scale-up processes in implementation trials; and mapping the processes, strategies, and principles for scale-up) has identified barriers and facilitators to intervention expansion. Many interventions are implemented at scale by governments but have not been evaluated or have unpublished evaluation information. Further, few public health interventions have evaluations that reveal the costs and benefits of scaled-up implementation. This lack of economic information introduces an additional element of risk for decision makers when deciding which physical activity interventions should be supported with scarce funding resources. Decision-makers face many other challenges when scaling interventions which do not relate to formal research trials of scale-up; Methods: To explore these issues, a multidisciplinary two-day workshop involving experts in physical activity scale-up was convened by the University of Newcastle, Australia, and the University of Ottawa, Canada (February 2019); Results: In this paper we discuss some of the scale-up tensions (challenges and conflicts) and paradoxes (things that are contrary to expectations) that emerged from this workshop in the context of the current literature and our own experiences in this field. We frame scale-up tensions according to epistemology, methodology, time, and partnerships; and paradoxes as 'reach without scale', 'planned serendipity' and 'simple complexity'. We reflect on the implications of these scale-up tensions and paradoxes, providing considerations for future scale-up research and practice moving forward; Conclusions: In this paper, we delve deeper into stakeholders' assumptions, processes and expectations of scaling up, and challenge in what ways as stakeholders, we all contribute to desired or undesired outcomes. Through a lens of 'tensions' and 'paradoxes', we make an original contribution to the scale-up literature that might influence current perspectives of scaling-up, provide future approaches for physical activity promotion, and contribute to understanding of dynamic of research-practice partnerships.

Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen growing interest in scaling up of innovations to strengthen healthcare systems. However, the lack of appropriate methods for determining their potential for scale-up is an unfortunate global handicap. Thus, we aimed to review tools proposed for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following the COSMIN methodology. We included any empirical research which aimed to investigate the creation, validation or interpretability of a scalability assessment tool in health. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and ERIC from their inception to 20 March 2019. We also searched relevant websites, screened the reference lists of relevant reports and consulted experts in the field. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted eligible reports and assessed the methodological quality of tools. We summarized data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We identified 31 reports describing 21 tools. Types of tools included criteria (47.6%), scales (33.3%) and checklists (19.0%). Most tools were published from 2010 onwards (90.5%), in open-access sources (85.7%) and funded by governmental or nongovernmental organizations (76.2%). All tools were in English; four were translated into French or Spanish (19.0%). Tool creation involved single (23.8%) or multiple (19.0%) types of stakeholders, or stakeholder involvement was not reported (57.1%). No studies reported involving patients or the public, or reported the sex of tool creators. Tools were created for use in high-income countries (28.6%), low- or middle-income countries (19.0%), or both (9.5%), or for transferring innovations from low- or middle-income countries to high-income countries (4.8%). Healthcare levels included public or population health (47.6%), primary healthcare (33.3%) and home care (4.8%). Most tools provided limited information on content validity (85.7%), and none reported on other measurement properties. The methodological quality of tools was deemed inadequate (61.9%) or doubtful (38.1%). CONCLUSIONS: We inventoried tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health. Existing tools are as yet of limited utility for assessing scalability in health. More work needs to be done to establish key psychometric properties of these tools. Trial registration We registered this review with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019107095).

A systematic review of adaptations and effectiveness of scaled-up nutrition interventions.

CONTEXT: Public health nutrition interventions shown to be effective under optimal research conditions need to be scaled up and implemented in real-world settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim for this review was to assess the effectiveness of scaled-up public health nutrition interventions with proven efficacy, as examined in a randomized controlled trial. Secondary objectives were to: 1) determine if the effect size of scaled-up interventions were comparable to the prescale effect, and; 2) identify any adaptations made during the scale-up process. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases were searched and field experts contacted. STUDY SELECTION: An intervention was considered scaled up if it was delivered on a larger scale than a preceding randomized controlled trial ("prescale") in which a significant intervention effect (P ≤ 0.05) was reported on a measure of nutrition. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Effect size differences between prescale and scaled-up interventions were quantified. Adaptations to scale-up studies were coded according to the Adaptome model. RESULTS: Ten scaled-up nutrition interventions were identified. The effect size difference between prescale trials and scaled-up studies ranged from -32.2% to 222% (median, 50%). All studies made adaptations between prescale to scaled-up interventions. CONCLUSION: The effects of nutrition interventions implemented at scale typically were half that achieved in prior efficacy trials. Identifying effective scale-up strategies and methods to support retainment of the original prescale effect size is urgently needed to inform public health policy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no.CRD42020149267.

Benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for non-Aboriginal women and their babies in New South Wales, Australia: a record linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Smoking rates among pregnant women in New South Wales (NSW) have plateaued at 8-9%. To inform relevant smoking reduction efforts, we aimed to quantify the benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for non-Aboriginal NSW mothers and their babies. The benefits of not smoking during pregnancy for NSW Aboriginal mothers have previously been described. These data are important inputs in modelling health and economic impacts of smoking cessation interventions. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used linked-data from routinely collected data sets. Not smoking during pregnancy was the exposure of interest among all NSW non-Aboriginal women who became mothers of singleton babies in 2012-2016. Unadjusted and adjusted relative risks (aRR) were used to examine associations between not smoking during pregnancy and adverse outcomes including severe morbidity, inter-hospital transfer, perinatal death, preterm birth and small-for-gestational age. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated to quantify adverse perinatal outcomes avoided in the population if all mothers were non-smokers. RESULTS: Compared with babies born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy, babies born to non-smoking mothers had a lower risk of all adverse perinatal outcomes including perinatal death (aRR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.61-0.76), preterm birth (aRR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.56-0.61) and small-for-gestational age (aRR = 0.48, 95%CI 0.47-0.50). PAFs(%) were 3.9% for perinatal death, 5.6% for preterm birth and 7.3% for small-for-gestational-age. Compared with women who smoked during pregnancy (n = 36,518), those who did not smoke (n = 413,072) had a lower risk of suffering severe maternal morbidity (aRR = 0.87, 95%CI 0.81-0.93) and being transferred to another hospital (aRR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.86-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Mothers who reported not smoking during pregnancy had a small reduction in their risk of morbidity and of being transferred to another hospital whilst their babies had substantially reduced risks of all adverse perinatal outcomes. Results have implications for clinician training, clinical care standards, and performance management.

"Getting Ireland Active"-Application of a Systems Approach to Increase Physical Activity in Ireland Using the GAPPA Framework.

Physical activity (PA) promotion is a complex challenge, with the Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (GAPPA) endorsing a systems approach and recommending countries assess existing areas of progress which can be strengthened. This paper reports a process facilitating a systems approach for identifying current good practice and gaps for promoting PA in Ireland. Elements of participatory action research were enabled through 3 stages: (1) aligning examples of actions from Irish policy documents (n = 3) to the GAPPA, (2) workshop with stakeholders across multiple sectors, and (3) review of outputs. Data collected through the workshop were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis guided by the GAPPA. The policy context in Ireland aligns closely to the GAPPA with the creation of Active Systems the most common strategic objective across policy documents. Forty participants (50% male) took part in the systems approach workshop, which after revision resulted in 80 examples of good practice and 121 actions for greater impact. A pragmatic and replicable process facilitating a systems approach was adopted and showed current Irish policy and practices align with the GAPPA "good practices." The process provides existing areas of progress which can be strengthened, as well as the policy opportunities and practice gaps.

Systematic Review to Update 'Value of a Statistical Life' Estimates for Australia.

The value of a statistical life (VSL) estimates individuals' willingness to trade wealth for mortality risk reduction. This economic parameter is often a major component of the quantified benefits estimated in the evaluation of government policies related to health and safety. This study reviewed the literature to update the VSL recommended for Australian policy appraisals. A systematic literature review was conducted to capture Australian primary studies and international review papers reporting VSL estimates published from 2007 to January 2019. International estimates were adjusted for income differences and the median VSL estimate was extracted from each review study. VSL estimates were used to calculate the value of a statistical life year. Of the 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria, two studies were primary Australian studies with a weighted mean VSL of A$7.0 million in 2017 values. The median VSL in the review studies was A$7.3 million. For Australian public policy appraisals, we recommend the consideration of a base case VSL for people of all ages and across all risk contexts of A$7.0 million. Sensitivity analyses could use a high value of A$7.3 million and a low value that reflects the value (A$4.3 million) currently recommended by the Australian government.

The how and why of producing policy relevant research: perspectives of Australian childhood obesity prevention researchers and policy makers.

BACKGROUND: Understanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research. METHODS: A literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts. RESULTS: The research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.

Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS. METHODS: We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants-any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention-any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator-no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting-HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. DISCUSSION: Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 ( https://osf.io/zqpx7/ ).

Identification and evaluation of risk of generalizability biases in pilot versus efficacy/effectiveness trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evaluations of behavioral interventions, referred to as pilot studies, predate the conduct of many large-scale efficacy/effectiveness trial. The ability of a pilot study to inform an efficacy/effectiveness trial relies on careful considerations in the design, delivery, and interpretation of the pilot results to avoid exaggerated early discoveries that may lead to subsequent failed efficacy/effectiveness trials. "Risk of generalizability biases (RGB)" in pilot studies may reduce the probability of replicating results in a larger efficacy/effectiveness trial. We aimed to generate an operational list of potential RGBs and to evaluate their impact in pairs of published pilot studies and larger, more well-powered trial on the topic of childhood obesity. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published pilot studies that had a published larger-scale trial of the same or similar intervention. Searches were updated and completed through December 31st, 2018. Eligible studies were behavioral interventions involving youth (≤18 yrs) on a topic related to childhood obesity (e.g., prevention/treatment, weight reduction, physical activity, diet, sleep, screen time/sedentary behavior). Extracted information included study characteristics and all outcomes. A list of 9 RGBs were defined and coded: intervention intensity bias, implementation support bias, delivery agent bias, target audience bias, duration bias, setting bias, measurement bias, directional conclusion bias, and outcome bias. Three reviewers independently coded for the presence of RGBs. Multi-level random effects meta-analyses were performed to investigate the association of the biases to study outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 39 pilot and larger trial pairs were identified. The frequency of the biases varied: delivery agent bias (19/39 pairs), duration bias (15/39), implementation support bias (13/39), outcome bias (6/39), measurement bias (4/39), directional conclusion bias (3/39), target audience bias (3/39), intervention intensity bias (1/39), and setting bias (0/39). In meta-analyses, delivery agent, implementation support, duration, and measurement bias were associated with an attenuation of the effect size of - 0.325 (95CI - 0.556 to - 0.094), - 0.346 (- 0.640 to - 0.052), - 0.342 (- 0.498 to - 0.187), and - 0.360 (- 0.631 to - 0.089), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-emptive avoidance of RGBs during the initial testing of an intervention may diminish the voltage drop between pilot and larger efficacy/effectiveness trials and enhance the odds of successful translation.

Translational Research Grants Scheme (TRGS): a new approach to strengthening health system research capacity.

BACKGROUND: Bridging the 'gap' between research evidence and the complexities of policy and practice is central to health improvement. The Translational Research Grants Scheme (TRGS) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, is a funding scheme aimed at reducing the time between research generation and translation to policy and practice. The TRGS is also an important part of NSW Health's efforts to harness and strengthen research capacity to improve health service delivery. METHODS: A document review and interviews (n = 12) with key stakeholders were undertaken following the first round of TRGS funding in November 2016. The communications from continuing quality improvement processes over the three funding rounds have provided further insight. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 53 projects have been funded under the scheme, with recipients across many NSW Health organisations. NSW Health has committed more than $24 million to date. Round one of the TRGS was received well by the policy makers, Local Health Districts and research stakeholders interviewed. Of particular note were: the requirement for Chief Executives to demonstrate strong support for the implementation of findings; requirements to partner with state-wide policy leads and clinical networks; and capacity-building outcomes of the scheme. The ongoing quality improvement processes indicate that the program continues to be well received, with improvements to partnership arrangements, and an acknowledgement of the challenge that arises because the scheme, by nature of its capacity-building aim, attracts proposals from a range of research experience. LESSONS LEARNT: The TRGS is filling an important gap in the research funding landscape in NSW and is well regarded by stakeholders. To ensure that the TRGS is achieving its intended aims, an evaluation of the impact of the scheme will take place during 2018-19.

Codesign of the Population Health Information Management System to measure reach and practice change of childhood obesity programs.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood obesity prevalence is an issue of international public health concern and governments have a significant role to play in its reduction. The Healthy Children Initiative (HCI) has been delivered in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, since 2011 to support implementation of childhood obesity prevention programs at scale. Consequently, a system to support local implementation and data collection, analysis and reporting at local and state levels was necessary. The Population Health Information Management System (PHIMS) was developed to meet this need. Design and development: A collaborative and iterative process was applied to the design and development of the system. The process comprised identifying technical requirements, building system infrastructure, delivering training, deploying the system and implementing quality measures. Use of PHIMS: Implementation of PHIMS resulted in rapid data retrieval and reporting against agreed performance measures for the HCI. The system has 150 users who account for the monitoring and reporting of more than 6000 HCI intervention sites (early childhood services and primary schools). LESSONS LEARNT: Developing and implementing PHIMS presented a number of complexities including: applying an information technology (IT) development methodology to a traditional health promotion setting; data access and confidentiality issues; and managing system development and deployment to intended timelines and budget. PHIMS was successfully codesigned as a flexible, scalable and sustainable IT solution that supports state-wide HCI program implementation, monitoring and reporting.

The Prevention Research Support Program: supporting innovation in research, translation and capability building.

OBJECTIVES: The Prevention Research Support Program (PRSP) is a New South Wales (NSW) Ministry of Health funding scheme. The scheme aims to build capability, and strengthen prevention and early intervention research that is important to the NSW public health system (NSW Health) and that leads to improved health and reduced health inequities for the people of NSW. This paper describes how PRSP funding has supported recipients to produce high-quality, policy-relevant research, and increase the impact of research on policy and practice. Type of program: The PRSP is a competitive funding program that supports NSW research organisations that conduct prevention and early intervention research that aligns with NSW Health priorities. The objectives of the PRSP are to: increase high-quality and internationally recognised prevention research in NSW; support the generation of research evidence that addresses NSW Health prevention priorities, including cross-government priorities; encourage the adoption of research evidence in relevant policies, programs and services in NSW; and build the prevention research capability of NSW Health staff and the NSW Health system. METHODS: Funding recipients provide information about their research, translation and capability building achievements in their funding applications and submit annual progress reports. Data from these sources were aggregated to illustrate trends in indicators of research excellence over time. Prior to the most recent call for applications, the program was reviewed. The review included consultations with funding recipients, policy and practice partners, and key funding stakeholders. Stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with the PRSP were drawn from the consultation data. RESULTS: PRSP funding recipients demonstrate considerable increases over time on several indicators of research excellence, including peer-reviewed journal publications, grant income, and research students supervised. Recipients use a range of strategies to ensure dialogue with health system partners, and report research impacts at the local, state, national and international levels. PRSP funding also supports the development of research capability. LESSONS LEARNT: The PRSP is a unique scheme that is highly valued by both funding recipients and health system stakeholders. The continuity of funding provided under the scheme enables recipients to adopt a strategic approach to their research and develop innovative strategies to support its conduct and use.

Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: A significant challenge in research translation is that interested parties interpret and apply the associated terms and conceptual frameworks in different ways. The purpose of this review was to: a) examine different research translation frameworks; b) examine the similarities and differences between the frameworks; and c) identify key strengths and weaknesses of the models when they are applied in practice. METHODS: The review involved a keyword search of PubMed. The search string was (translational research OR knowledge translation OR evidence to practice) AND (framework OR model OR theory) AND (public health OR health promotion OR medicine). Included studies were published in English between January 1990 and December 2014, and described frameworks, models or theories associated with research translation. RESULTS: The final review included 98 papers, and 41 different frameworks and models were identified. The most frequently applied knowledge translation framework in the literature was RE-AIM, followed by the knowledge translation continuum or 'T' models, the Knowledge to Action framework, the PARiHS framework, evidence based public health models, and the stages of research and evaluation model. CONCLUSION: The models identified in this review stem from different fields, including implementation science, basic and medical sciences, health services research and public health, and propose different but related pathways to closing the research-practice gap.

A bibliographic review of public health dissemination and implementation research output and citation rates.

The aim of this study was to describe the research output and citation rates (academic impact) of public health dissemination and implementation research according to research design and study type. A cross sectional bibliographic study was undertaken in 2013. All original data-based studies and review articles focusing on dissemination and implementation research that had been published in 10 randomly selected public health journals in 2008 were audited. The electronic database 'Scopus' was used to calculate 5-year citation rates for all included publications. Of the 1648 publications examined, 216 were original data-based research or literature reviews focusing on dissemination and implementation research. Of these 72% were classified as descriptive/epidemiological, 26% were intervention and just 1.9% were measurement research. Cross-sectional studies were the most common study design (47%). Reviews, randomized trials, non-randomized trials and decision/cost-effectiveness studies each represented between 6 and 10% of all output. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were the most frequently cited study designs. The study suggests that publications that had the greatest academic impact (highest citation rates) made up only a small proportion of overall public health dissemination and implementation research output.

Barriers and facilitators to evaluation of health policies and programs: Policymaker and researcher perspectives.

Our research sought to identify the barriers and facilitators experienced by policymakers and evaluation researchers in the critical early stages of establishing an evaluation of a policy or program. We sought to determine the immediate barriers experienced at the point of initiating or commissioning evaluations and how these relate to broader system factors previously identified in the literature. We undertook 17 semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of senior policymakers (n=9) and senior evaluation researchers (n=8) in Australia. Six themes were consistently raised by participants: political influence, funding, timeframes, a 'culture of evaluation', caution over anticipated results, and skills of policy agency staff. Participants also reflected on the dynamics of policy-researcher relationships including different motivations, physical and conceptual separation of the policy and researcher worlds, intellectual property concerns, and trust. We found that political and system factors act as macro level barriers to good evaluation practice that are manifested as time and funding constraints and contribute to organisational cultures that can come to fear evaluation. These factors then fed into meso and micro level factors. The dynamics of policy-researcher relationship provide a further challenge to evaluating government policies and programs.

What is generated and what is used: a description of public health research output and citation.

The aim of this short report was to describe the output and citation rates of public health. Data-based publications and literature reviews from the year 2008, and their 5-year citation rates were extracted from 10 randomly selected public health journals. In total, 86.2% of publications were descriptive/epidemiological studies, 56.8% used cross-sectional (56.8%) designs and 77.8% were classified as research translation stage 2. Reviews and publications describing randomized controlled trials were the most highly cited, but were infrequently published. Strategies to address the discordance between public health research output and research citation may improve the impact of public health research.