Harnessing citizen science in health promotion: perspectives of policy and practice stakeholders in Australia.

Citizen science is rapidly gaining momentum as a means of involving members of the public in research and decision-making in disease prevention and health promotion. However, citizen science projects have predominantly been led by academic researchers and there is limited understanding of how to support the application of citizen science approaches in policy and practice settings. This study aimed to understand the perceptions, motivations and early experiences of applying citizen science approaches in policy and practice settings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with policy and practice stakeholders who were leading citizen science projects (project partners, n = 7), and their implementation partners (project implementers, n = 11). Participants viewed citizen science as an opportunity to access hard-to-reach data and to enhance engagement with community members to support policy and practice change. Barriers and facilitators of citizen science in policy and practice settings included navigating collaborative relationships, team capacity and resources available to deliver projects, recruitment and engagement of citizen scientists and ethical considerations in the design and implementation of citizen science projects. Findings support the feasibility and wider application of citizen science approaches in health promotion and are being used to inform the development of tools and resources to build capacity in these approaches in policy and practice settings.

Icing or cake? Grant competitions as a model for funding chronic disease prevention in Tasmania, Australia.

Competitive grant funding is a well-established mechanism for generating activity and interventions in the field of chronic disease prevention. Yet grant competitions may be burdensome for organizations, and money may not be enough to bring about lasting change in communities. In this study, we explore the dynamics of awarding and receiving money in the context of a state-level government grant competition to support community organizations and promote community-driven action for health and well-being in Tasmania, Australia. Drawing on reflections of successful grant recipients and real-time observation of grant decision-making, we consider the role and value of grant competitions both for individual organizations and for generating broader change processes. We found that grant competitions operated according to an 'icing-on-the-cake' approach to funding, whereby money was provided for extra activities and new initiatives. In this way, the grant competition was valuable not only for stimulating new programme activities but also to effect broader organizational change, such as developing planning capacity, igniting new directions and pushing organizations towards 'health'-focused activities. But for smaller organizations, grant funding was often stretched to support core work (i.e. cake rather than icing). Grants targeting specific focus areas could be a drain on resources if they diverted staff time away from core activities. We suggest an alternative approach to funding in which grants are able to be more responsive to the needs of community organizations and the support they require, as well as to desired outcomes. We describe the policy response to the results to date.

When a person attends a class on buying, storing and cooking fresh vegetables, or enrols in a walking group, or joins others to learn first aid, this 'community-based health promotion' is often the product of ideas and actions taken by staff employed in health services, local government and the community sector (e.g. neighbourhood houses). Grant competitions are intended to foster new ideas by providing money for new services, equipment or expertise. We investigated what happens behind the scenes when state government grants are awarded. We found that large organizations fare well as they can use new funds to innovate or gather evidence about the value of new ventures. But many smaller organizations suffer as they do not have the person power to write grants, hire extra staff or support new activities. Restrictions on what can and can't be done with grant money can make receiving grants a burden, that is, grants fund 'icing' when what is needed is 'cake'. An inadequate mix of funding types at the community level can mean that grant schemes are pressured to fill gaps for which they were not designed. Our policy partners have responded with more community-centred grant making, better tailored to various levels of community organizational need.

Soft infrastructure: the critical community-level resources reportedly needed for program success.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms typically used to fund health promotion in communities, either as part of an effort to scale-up programs or to support the design of local activities, often pay insufficient attention to the foundational means of enhancing well-being. Only recently have researchers begun to critically 'unpack' how funding processes connect with and activate local community capacities. METHODS: We conducted a thematic analysis of 33 interviews with policy and program administrators in public health and local community workers and volunteers. We invited them to expound on their understandings of resources - specifically, what needs to be in place to make funded programs successful and/or what do communities draw on to make funded programs effective. RESULTS: Policy and program administrators reflected mostly on the importance of traditional resources, such as adequate funding and staffing. Community-based participants often went further to describe psychological and sociological resources - the "soft infrastructure" which included trust and hope. Both groups emphasised the importance of building networks and relationships at multiple levels. Community workers also provided examples of how resources grow and improve in value in combination with other processes or through pathways of resource use or resource distribution. So, resources like information/knowledge are made more valuable when relayed locally. Physical amenities (e.g., meeting spaces, kitchens) have an instrumental role, but also act powerfully as a symbolic resource for identity. Participants reported that funding processes can damage the resources required for community health improvement. Funding instability undermines capacity. The ongoing threat of funding removal was described by one administrator as community "bullying". CONCLUSIONS: Processes of health promotion funding, and even standard processes of program scale-up and readiness assessment, risk underestimating the range of resources that are fundamental for community health improvement, particularly among disadvantaged communities. Funders should design ways to resource communities so that there is constant attention to and coaching of critically important diverse processes of resource growth, independent of program-specific funds.

Public Health Messaging During Extreme Smoke Events: Are We Hitting the Mark?

Background: Emergency services working to protect communities from harm during wildfires aim to provide regular public advisories on the hazards from fire and smoke. However, there are few studies evaluating the success of public health communications regarding the management of smoke exposure. We explored the responses to smoke-related health advisories of people living in a severely smoke-affected region during extensive wildfires in Tasmania, Australia early in 2019. We also evaluated the acceptability of portable high efficiency particle air (HEPA) cleaners used in study participant's homes during the smoky period. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 households in the Huon Valley region of Tasmania following a severe smoke episode. These households were initially recruited into a HEPA cleaner study. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for common themes using an inductive framework approach. Results: Public health messaging during the 2019 wildfire event in Tasmania was widely shared and understood, with social media playing a central role. However, some participants expressed concerns about the timeliness and effectiveness of the recommended interventions, and some would have appreciated more detailed information about the health risks from smoke. Public messages and actions to protect households from wildfire threat were, at times, contradictory or dominated in coverage over the smoke messaging, and many participants were conflicted with the multiple public messages and action relating to the more serious perceived threat from the fire. Conclusions: Public messaging about smoke and health should continue to use multiple avenues of communication, with a focus on simple messages provided through social media. Messaging about the smoke hazard should be available from a trusted central source regarding all aspects of the wildfire emergency, with links to more detailed information including local air quality data alongside interpretation of the associated health risks.

What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. RESULTS: All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. CONCLUSION: These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.