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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparing and contrasting 'innovation platforms' with other forms of professional networks for strengthening primary healthcare systems for Indigenous Australians.

Efforts to strengthen health systems require the engagement of diverse, multidisciplinary stakeholder networks. Networks provide a forum for experimentation and knowledge creation, information exchange and the spread of good ideas and practice. They might be useful in addressing complex issues or 'wicked' problems, the solutions to which go beyond the control and scope of any one agency. Innovation platforms are proposed as a novel type of network because of their diverse stakeholder composition and focus on problem solving within complex systems. Thus, they have potential applicability to health systems strengthening initiatives, even though they have been predominantly applied in the international agricultural development sector. In this paper, we compare and contrast the concept of innovation platforms with other types of networks that can be used in efforts to strengthen primary healthcare systems, such as communities of practice, practice-based research networks and quality improvement collaboratives. We reflect on our ongoing research programme that applies innovation platform concepts to drive large-scale quality improvement in primary healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and outline our plans for evaluation. Lessons from our experience will find resonance with others working on similar initiatives in global health.

Identifying evidence-practice gaps and strategies for improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander maternal health care.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse pregnancy outcomes are more common among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations than non-Indigenous populations in Australia. Later in life, most of the difference in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and non-Indigenous women is due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women attend health services regularly during pregnancy. Providing high-quality care within these appointments has an important role to play in improving the current and future health of women and babies. AIM: This study engaged stakeholders in a theory-informed process to use aggregated continuous quality improvement (CQI) data to identify 1) priority evidence-practice gaps in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander maternal health care, 2) barriers and enablers to high-quality care, and 3) strategies to address identified priorities. METHODS: Three phases of reporting and feedback were implemented using de-identified CQI data from 91 health services between 2007 and 2014 (4,402 client records). Stakeholders (n = 172) from a range of professions and organisations participated. RESULTS: Stakeholders identified four priority areas relating to NCDs: smoking, alcohol, psychosocial wellbeing and nutrition. Barriers or enablers to high-quality care included workforce support, professional development, teamwork, woman-centred care, decision support, equipment and community engagement. Strategies to address the priorities included upskilling staff to provide best practice care in priority areas, advocating for availability of healthy food, housing and local referral options, partnering with communities on health promotion projects, systems to facilitate continuity of care and clear referral pathways. CONCLUSIONS: This novel use of large-scale aggregate CQI data facilitated stakeholder input on priority evidence-practice gaps in maternal health care in Australia. Evidence-practice gaps relating to NCD risk factors and social determinants of health were prioritised, and stakeholders suggested both healthcare-focussed initiatives and approaches involving the community and the wider health sector. The findings can inform health service planning, advocacy, inter-agency strategies, and future research.

Wide-Scale Continuous Quality Improvement: A Study of Stakeholders' Use of Quality of Care Reports at Various System Levels, and Factors Mediating Use.

Introduction: Increasing the use of evidence in healthcare policy and practice requires greater understanding of how stakeholders use evidence to inform policy, refine systems and change practice. Drawing on implementation theory, we have used system-focused participatory research to engage diverse stakeholders in using aggregated continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from Australian Indigenous primary health care settings to identify priority evidence-practice gaps, barriers/enablers and strategies for improvement. This article reports stakeholders' use or intended use of evidence at various levels of the system, and factors mediating use. Material and Methods: Interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of 30 healthcare stakeholders in different roles, organization types and settings in one Australian jurisdiction and with national participants, as part of the project's developmental evaluation. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify themes and categories relating to use of evidence. Results: Context-specific aggregated CQI data that were relatable to the diverse professional roles and practices provided an effective starting point for sharing perspectives, generating practice-based evidence and mobilizing evidence-use. Interviewees perceived the co-produced findings as applicable at different levels and useful for planning, policy development, supporting best practice and reflection, capacity strengthening and developing new research. Factors mediating use were commitment to best practice; the credibility of the evidence and its perceived relevance to work roles, contexts and decision needs; report format and language; facilitation and communication; competing work pressures and the organizational environment for change. Conclusions: This study found that primary health care stakeholders used evidence on quality of care for a variety of purposes. This could be linked to the interactive research processes used to engage stakeholders in different roles and settings in interpreting data, sharing and generating knowledge. Findings indicate that system-based participatory research using CQI data and iterative, interactive and systematic CQI-based methods can be applied at scale to support concurrent action for healthcare improvement at different system levels. Factors known to influence implementation should be addressed within the research design to optimize evidence use. Further research is needed to explore the utility of interactive dissemination for engaging healthcare stakeholders in informing policy and system change.

A developmental evaluation to enhance stakeholder engagement in a wide-scale interactive project disseminating quality improvement data: study protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Bringing together continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from multiple health services offers opportunities to identify common improvement priorities and to develop interventions at various system levels to achieve large-scale improvement in care. An important principle of CQI is practitioner participation in interpreting data and planning evidence-based change. This study will contribute knowledge about engaging diverse stakeholders in collaborative and theoretically informed processes to identify and address priority evidence-practice gaps in care delivery. This paper describes a developmental evaluation to support and refine a novel interactive dissemination project using aggregated CQI data from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare centres in Australia. The project aims to effect multilevel system improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Data will be gathered using document analysis, online surveys, interviews with participants and iterative analytical processes with the research team. These methods will enable real-time feedback to guide refinements to the design, reports, tools and processes as the interactive dissemination project is implemented. Qualitative data from interviews and surveys will be analysed and interpreted to provide in-depth understanding of factors that influence engagement and stakeholder perspectives about use of the aggregated data and generated improvement strategies. Sources of data will be triangulated to build up a comprehensive, contextualised perspective and integrated understanding of the project's development, implementation and findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (Project 2015-2329), the Central Australian HREC (Project 15-288) and the Charles Darwin University HREC (Project H15030) approved the study. Dissemination will include articles in peer-reviewed journals, policy and research briefs. Results will be presented at conferences and quality improvement network meetings. Researchers, clinicians, policymakers and managers developing evidence-based system and policy interventions should benefit from this research.