Knowledge Translation and Implementation Planning to Promote Research Governance in Nongovernment Organizations in the Torres Strait: Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia have participated in Western research for decades. When done well, research has resulted in significant benefits and positive impacts on society. However, the primary benefactor of this research has and continues to be researchers, with limited or no research knowledge mobilized for uptake and beneficial use by end users, such as individuals and communities. In 2021, the Torres Strait Islanders Research to Policy and Practice Hub (the Hub) at James Cook University designed and implemented several strategies, including a games-based interactive workshop with representatives from nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Feedback suggests the workshop and associated activities were a success. OBJECTIVE: We describe knowledge translation (KT) and implementation planning to design and implement strategies to increase awareness and understanding of NGOs in research governance. METHODS: This descriptive study involved representatives from NGOs on Thursday Island in the Torres Strait. We collected data from a literature review and informal discussions. We used several models and frameworks to guide our approach and underpin data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Designing and implementing strategies to increase awareness and understanding of NGOs in the Torres Strait to govern research involved several key steps: (1) identifying and defining what needed to change and who needed to change, (2) identifying and mapping barriers and facilitators, (3) selecting the most appropriate strategies to support change, (4) implementing activities, and (5) monitoring and evaluating our approach. We developed a program logic to understand and communicate to others how we would implement activities and what resources would be required to support this process. We drew on several evidence-based KT and implementation models and frameworks to do this. First, a KT planning template was used to inform what evidence we wanted to mobilize, to whom, and for what purpose. Based on this step, we recognized we wanted to bring about change with the target audience, and as such, we drew on the previously mentioned implementation planning models and frameworks. We collated the outcomes from these initial steps. CONCLUSIONS: Our KT and implementation practice experience were successful. Encouraging researchers and end users to adopt similar practices requires investment in training and development of KT and implementation practice. This also entails modifying research standards and guidelines to include KT and implementation practice when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other vulnerable groups, creating incentives for researchers and end users to embed KT and implementation practice in research, and recognizing and rewarding the benefits and impact beyond publication and presentation.

Knowledge translation in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research contexts in Australia: scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge translation (KT) involves bridging the gaps between research knowledge and research application or practice, by sharing this knowledge with knowledge-users. KT is increasingly being used in research with Indigenous peoples globally to address the top-down and inappropriate research approaches commonly used in Indigenous research. Employing KT in Indigenous research in Australia is an emergent field, despite Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples having conducted KT for generations.There is limited evidence which demonstrates how KT is applied in the Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander context. Results will benefit researchers by demonstrating ways of appropriately translating research findings to knowledge-users, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, researchers and policy makers. The scoping review will also inform a KT definition, method and practices used in a large-scale, longitudinal cohort study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults: the Mayi Kuwayu Study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Under guidance of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance committee, we will conduct a scoping review on KT in Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander research. We will follow the scoping review method outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search the ANU SuperSearch, and grey and hard to find literature in June 2022. Abstracts and full-text articles will be screened by two independent reviewers. We will include studies that relate to KT in Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander research, regardless of the research topic. Results will be used to inform the KT definition, method and practices that can be used in Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander research contexts in Australia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Mayi Kuwayu Study has ethics approvals from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 12 Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander organisations, and the Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated through peer-review publication and community workshops. Protocol registration is available online (10.17605/OSF.IO/JMFQ3).

Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs (ILSMPs) Enhance the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians.

Conservation and environmental management have been reported as offering opportunities to substantially improve the wellbeing of Indigenous people. Using the holistic wellbeing impact evaluation (W-IE) approach-well suited for use in Indigenous communities-we interviewed 190 Indigenous Australians across four communities. All communities were involved in the Indigenous land and sea management programs (ILSMPs). Our study explored the conceptualisation of 'wellbeing' by participants. In particular, we were interested in the aspects of wellbeing perceived to be affected by ILSMPs. Out of the 26 wellbeing factors explored, 'Health centres'; 'Language'; 'Schools'; and 'Safe community' emerged as being of highest importance to the largest percentage of the respondents. When grouped using principle components analysis (PCA), the 'Community and society' domain emerged as the most important; accounting for 52% of the overall importance of all wellbeing factors. The second most important domain was the 'Country and culture', contributing 31%. Lastly, 'Economic aspects' contributed only 17%. Respondents believed that ILSMPs have played a considerable causal role in improving wellbeing, by positively changing factors most important to them. Specifically, 73% of perceived causal links were related to improvements in the 'Country and Culture' and 23% to 'Community and Society' domain. We thus conclude that land management for Indigenous people is much more than ecological or environmental management with ILSMPs, perceived to cause a wide range of cultural and social benefits. We also propose ways in which the future design of such programs could be improved to further increase benefits.

Assessing research impact: Australian Research Council criteria and the case of Family Wellbeing research.

Researchers worldwide are increasingly reporting the societal impact of their research as part of national research productivity assessments. However, the challenges they encounter in developing their impact case studies against specified government assessment criteria and how pitfalls can be mitigated are not reported. This paper examines the key steps taken to develop an Aboriginal Family Wellbeing (FWB) empowerment research impact case study in the context of an Australian Research Council (ARC) pilot research impact assessment exercise and the challenges involved in applying the ARC criteria. The requirement that researchers demonstrate how their institutions support them to conduct impactful research has the potential to create supportive environments for researchers to be more responsive to the needs of users outside academia. However, the 15-year reference period for the associated research underpinning the reported impact and the focus on researcher's current institutional affiliation constitute potential constraints to demonstrating the true impact of research. For researchers working with Indigenous people, relationships that build over long periods of time, irrespective of university affiliation, are critical to conducting impactful research. A more open-ended time-frame, with no institutional restrictions for the 'associated research' provides the best opportunity to demonstrate the true benefits of research not only for Indigenous people but for Australian society more broadly.

Adolescent and young adult substance use in Australian Indigenous communities: a systematic review of demand control program outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying preventative approaches to substance use in Indigenous communities is the foundation for developing evidence-based responses. This study reports the findings of a systematic review of the published literature evaluating the impact of substance use programs on Australian Indigenous youth. METHODS: Evidence about the impact of substance use programs for Indigenous young people was identified from a systematic review of the literature conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Only four original studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified, although a further 19 papers that described characteristics of programs that may be associated with improved outcomes were reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence relevant to the outcomes of demand control programs that target Australian Indigenous youth substance use is both weak and inconsistent. There is a need to support the type of evaluation activity required to better understand program effectiveness and build the Indigenous knowledge base. Implications for public health: These findings are discussed in relation to the development of evidence-based practice and the type of knowledge that is likely to be of most use to those seeking to address problems associated with youth substance use.

No one's discussing the elephant in the room: contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research.

BACKGROUND: There remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate. DISCUSSION: Capturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit. SUMMARY: A perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work.