Perspectives of California Legislators on Institutional Barriers and Facilitators to Non-Partisan Research Evidence Use in State Health Policymaking.

BACKGROUND: Bridging the translational gap between research evidence and health policy in state legislatures requires understanding the institutional barriers and facilitators to non-partisan research evidence use. Previous studies have identified individual-level barriers and facilitators to research evidence use, but limited perspectives exist on institutional factors within legislatures that influence non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking. OBJECTIVE: We describe the perspectives of California state legislators and legislative staff on institutional barriers and facilitators of non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking and explore potential solutions for enhancing use. DESIGN: Case study design involving qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 24 California state legislators, legislative office staff, and legislative research staff. APPROACH: Semi-structured recorded interviews were conducted in person or by phone to identify opportunities for enhancing non-partisan research evidence use within state legislatures. We conducted thematic analyses of interview transcripts to identify (1) when research evidence is used during the policymaking process, (2) barriers and facilitators operating at the institutional level, and (3) potential solutions for enhancing evidence use. RESULTS: Institutional barriers to non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking were grouped into three themes: institutional policies, practices, and priorities. Interviews also revealed institutional-level facilitators of research evidence use, including (1) access and capacity to engage with research evidence, and (2) perceived credibility of research evidence. The most widely supported institutional-level solution for enhancing evidence-based health policymaking in state legislatures involved establishing independent, impartial research entities to provide legislators with trusted evidence to inform decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Potential institutional-level changes within state legislatures may enhance evidence use in health policymaking, leading to improved health outcomes and lower healthcare costs for states.

How long does it take to scale-up obesity prevention interventions?

OBJECTIVE: The scale-up of evidence-based interventions is necessary to reverse high rates of obesity. However, scale-up doesn't occur frequently nor in a timely manner. While it has been estimated that takes 14-17 years for research translation to occur, the time taken to scale-up prevention interventions is largely unknown. This study examined the time taken to scale-up obesity prevention interventions across four scale-up pathways. METHODS: A sample of obesity prevention interventions that had been scaled-up or implemented at scale were found using a structured search strategy. Included interventions were mapped against four scale-up pathways and timeframes associated with each stage of the scale-up pathway were identified to determine the time taken to scale-up. RESULTS: Of the 90 interventions found that were scaled-up to at least a city-wide level, less than half reported a comprehensive research pathway to scale-up and a third did not report any evidence of efficacy or effectiveness prior to scale-up. The time taken to scale-up ranged from 0 to 5 years depending on the pathway taken. Those following a comprehensive pathway took approximately 5 years to scale-up, while interventions that had only one evidence generating step took between 1 and 1.5 years to scale-up. For the remaining interventions, scale-up occurred immediately post-development without evidence generation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the scale-up of obesity prevention interventions can occur more quickly than previous estimates of 14-17 years. Our findings support previous research that scale-up of interventions occurs through a variety of pathways and often scale-up occurs in absence of prior evidence of effectiveness.

Research Translation to Promote Urban Health in Latin America: The SALURBAL Experience.

In highly urbanized and unequal Latin America, urban health and health equity research are essential to effective policymaking. To ensure the application of relevant and context-specific evidence to efforts to reduce urban health inequities, urban health research in Latin America must incorporate strategic research translation efforts. Beginning in 2017, the Urban Health in Latin America (SALURBAL) project implemented policy-relevant research and engaged policymakers and the public to support the translation of research findings. Over 6 years, more than 200 researchers across eight countries contributed to SALURBAL's interdisciplinary network. This network allowed SALURBAL to adapt research and engagement activities to local contexts and priorities, thereby maximizing the policy relevance of research findings and their application to promote policy action, inform urban interventions, and drive societal change. SALURBAL achieved significant visibility and credibility among academic and nonacademic urban health stakeholders, resulting in the development of evidence and tools to support urban policymakers, planners, and policy development processes across the region. These efforts and their outcomes reveal important lessons regarding maintaining flexibility and accounting for local context in research, ensuring that resources are dedicated to policy engagement and dissemination activities, and recognizing that assessing policy impact requires a nuanced understanding of complex policymaking processes. These reflections are relevant for promoting urban health and health equity research translation across the global south and worldwide. This paper presents SALURBAL's strategy for dissemination and policy translation, highlights innovative initiatives and their outcomes, discusses lessons learned, and shares recommendations for future efforts to promote effective translation of research findings.

Translating evidence into practice in primary care management of adolescents and women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The international guideline on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) provides evidence-based recommendations on the management of PCOS. Guideline implementation tools (GItools) were developed for general practitioner (GP) use to aid rapid translation of guidelines into practice. This mixed-methods study aimed to evaluate barriers and enablers of the uptake of PCOS GItools in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey was distributed through professional networks and social media to GPs and GPs in training in Australia. Survey respondents were invited to contribute to semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and mapped deductively to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model. RESULTS: The study engaged 146 GPs through surveys, supplemented by interviews with 14 participants. A key enabler to capability was reflective practice. Barriers relating to opportunity included limited awareness and difficulty locating and using GItools due to length and lack of integration into practice software, while enablers included ensuring recommendations were relevant to GP scope of practice. Enablers relevant to motivation included co-use with patients, and evidence of improved outcomes with the use of GItools. DISCUSSION: This study highlights inherent barriers within the Australian healthcare system that hinder GPs from integrating evidence for PCOS. Findings will underpin behaviour change interventions to assist GPs in effectively utilising guidelines in clinical practice, therefore minimising variations in care. While our findings will have a direct influence on guideline translation initiatives, changes at organisational and policy levels are also needed to address identified barriers.

Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action.

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

Communities catalyzing change with data to mitigate an invisible menace, traffic-related air pollution.

OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies and tactics communities use to translate research into environmental health action. METHODS: We employed a qualitative case study design to explore public health action conducted by residents, organizers, and public health planners in two Massachusetts communities as part of a community based participatory (CBPR) research study. Data sources included key informant interviews (n = 24), reports and direct observation of research and community meetings (n = 10) and project meeting minutes from 2016-2021. Data were coded deductively drawing on the community organizing and implementation frameworks. RESULTS: In Boston Chinatown, partners drew broad participation from community-based organizations, residents, and municipal leaders, which resulted in air pollution mitigation efforts being embedded in the master planning process. In Somerville, partners focused on change at multiple levels, developer behavior, and separate from the funded research, local legislative efforts, and litigation. CONCLUSIONS: CBPR affords communities the ability to environmental health efforts in a way that is locally meaningful, leveraging their respective strengths. External facilitation can support the continuity and sustainment of community led CBPR efforts.

The value of health service-based research to health service organisations: a qualitative study with senior health service executives.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence has demonstrably improved health care practices and patient outcomes. However, systemic translation of evidence into practice is far from optimal. The reasons are complex, but often because research is not well aligned with health service priorities. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of senior health service executives on two issues: (1) the alignment between local research activity and the needs and priorities of their health services, and (2) the extent to which research is or can be integrated as part of usual health care practice. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health leaders from four large health service organisations that are members of Sydney Health Partners (SHP), one of Australia's nationally accredited research translation centres committed to accelerating the translation of research findings into evidence-based health care. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023, and were either audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim or recorded in the interviewer field notes. A thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted by two researchers, using the framework method to identify common themes. RESULTS: Seventeen health executives were interviewed, including chief executives, directors of medical services, nursing, allied health, research, and others in executive leadership roles. Responses to issue (1) included themes on re-balancing curiosity- and priority-driven research; providing more support for research activity within health organisations; and helping health professionals and researchers discuss researchable priorities. Responses to issue (2) included identification of elements considered essential for embedding research in health care; and the need to break down silos between research and health care, as well as within health organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Health service leaders value research but want more research that aligns with their needs and priorities. Discussions with researchers about those priorities may need some facilitation. Making research a more integrated part of health care will require strong and broad executive leadership, resources and infrastructure, and investing in capacity- and capability-building across health clinicians, managers and executive staff.

Lost in translation: a narrative review and synthesis of the published international literature on mental health research and translation priorities (2011-2023).

BACKGROUND: Priority setting in mental health research is arguably lost in translation. Decades of effort has led to persistent repetition in what the research priorities of people with lived-experience of mental ill-health are. AIM: This was a narrative review and synthesis of published literature reporting mental health research priorities (2011-2023). METHODS: A narrative framework was established with the questions: (1) who has been involved in priority setting? With whom have priorities been set? Which priorities have been established and for whom? What progress has been made? And, whose priorities are being progressed? RESULTS: Seven papers were identified. Two were Australian, one Welsh, one English, one was from Chile and another Brazilian and one reported on a European exercise across 28 countries (ROAMER). Hundreds of priorities were listed in all exercises. Prioritisation mostly occured from survey rankings and/or workshops (using dots, or post-it note voting). Most were dominated by clinicians, academics and government rather than people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer, family and kinship group members. CONCLUSION: One lived-experience research led survey was identified. Few studies reported lived-experience design and development involvement. Five of the seven papers reported responses, but no further progress on priorities being met was reported.

This review followed PRISMA guidance for search strategy development and systematic review and reporting. This was not a systematic review with or without meta-analysis and the method did not fit for registration with PROSPERO.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

Experiences of knowledge translation among researchers in transfusion medicine: Findings from an international survey study.

BACKGROUND: Translation of research knowledge is critical to ensure transfusion medicine policies and practices reflect current evidence and so effectively support the health of blood donors and recipients, as well as ensuring ongoing blood supply. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators of knowledge translation (KT) among transfusion medicine researchers and determine what KT supports are needed. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients in the area of transfusion medicine, posting on social media, and through an international blood operator network. RESULTS: The final sample included 105 researchers. Participants had a positive orientation toward KT, with few perceiving KT as not relevant to their research or beneficial for their careers. However, many reported facing difficulties practicing KT due to time constraints, competing priorities, or lack of funds or resources. Fostering relationships with stakeholders was seen as a key facilitator of KT but a number of researchers expressed difficulties engaging and communicating with them. Collaboration opportunities, protected time for KT, and access to KT resources were some of the supports researchers felt were required to help their KT efforts. CONCLUSION: To minimize the knowledge to practice gap in transfusion medicine and ensure findings from research lead to improved outcomes, organizations need to support researchers in their KT efforts and facilitate interactions between researchers and research end-users.

Embedding health literacy research and best practice within a socioeconomically and culturally diverse health service: A narrative case study and revised model of co-creation.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy interventions and research outcomes are not routinely or systematically implemented within healthcare systems. Co-creation with stakeholders is a potential vehicle through which to accelerate and scale up the implementation of innovation from research. METHODS: This narrative case study describes an example of the application of a co-creation approach to improve health literacy in an Australian public health system that provides hospital and community health services to one million people from socioeconomically and culturally diverse backgrounds. We provide a detailed overview of the value co-creation stages and strategies used to build a practical and sustainable working relationship between a University-based academic research group and the local health district focussed on improving health literacy. RESULTS: Insights from our experience over a 5-year period informed the development of a revised model of co-creation. The model incorporates a practical focus on the structural enablers of co-creation, including the development of a Community of Practice, co-created strategic direction and shared management systems. The model also includes a spectrum of partnership modalities (spanning relationship-building, partnering and co-creating), acknowledging the evolving nature of research partnerships and reinforcing the flexibility and commitment required to achieve meaningful co-creation in research. Four key facilitators of health literacy co-creation are identified: (i) local champions, (ii) co-generated resources, (iii) evolving capability and understanding and (iv) increasing trust and partnership synergy. CONCLUSION: Our case study and co-creation model provide insights into mechanisms to create effective and collaborative ways of working in health literacy which may be transferable to other health fields in Australia and beyond. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our co-creation approach brought together a community of practice of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers as equal partners.

Impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Research impact is an emerging measure of research achievement alongside traditional academic outputs such as publications. We present the results of applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke, 2014-2019) and report on the feasibility and lessons from the application of FAIT to a CRE rather than a discrete research project. METHODS: Data were gathered via online surveys, in-depth interviews, document analysis and review of relevant websites/databases to report on the three major FAIT methods: the modified Payback Framework, an assessment of costs against monetized consequences, and a narrative account of the impact generated from CRE-Stroke activities. FAIT was applied during the last 4 years of CRE-Stroke operation. RESULTS: With an economic investment of AU$ 3.9 million over 5 years, CRE-Stroke delivered a return on investment that included AU$ 18.8 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies. Collectively, CRE-Stroke members produced 354 publications that were accessed 470,000 times and cited over 7220 times. CRE-Stroke supported 26 PhDs, 39 postdocs and seven novice clinician researchers. There were 59 capacity-building events benefiting 744 individuals including policy-makers and consumers. CRE-Stroke created research infrastructure (including a research register of stroke survivors and a brain biobank), and its global leadership produced international consensus recommendations to influence the stroke research landscape worldwide. Members contributed to the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines: four researchers' outputs were directly referenced. Based only on the consequences that could be monetized, CRE-Stroke returned AU$ 4.82 for every dollar invested in the CRE. CONCLUSION: This case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report the impact of and returns on research investment. The prospective application of FAIT by a dedicated research impact team demonstrated impact in broad categories of knowledge-gain, capacity-building, new infrastructure, input to policy and economic benefits. The methods can be used by other research teams to provide comprehensive evidence to governments and other research funders about what has been generated from their research investment but requires dedicated resources to complete.

Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy.

BACKGROUND: Use of epidemiological research in policy and practice is suboptimal, contributing to significant preventable morbidity and mortality. Barriers to the use of research evidence in policy include lack of research-policy engagement, lack of policy-relevant research, differences in policymaker and researcher practice norms, time constraints, difficulties in coordination, and divergent languages and reward systems. APPROACH AND OUTCOMES: In order to increase policy-relevant research and research uptake, we developed the output-orientated policy engagement (OOPE) model, in Australia. It integrates a foundational approach to engagement with cycles of specific activity focused around selected research outputs. Foundational elements include measures to increase recognition and valuing of policymaker expertise, emphasis on policy uptake, policy awareness of the research group's work, regular policy engagement and policy-relevant capacity-building. Specific activities include (i) identification of an "output"-usually at draft stage-and program of work which are likely to be of interest to policymakers; (ii) initial engagement focusing on sharing "preview" evidence from this output, with an invitation to provide input into this and to advise on the broader program of work; and (iii) if there is sufficient interest, formation of a researcher-policy-maker partnership to shape and release the output, as well as inform the program of work. This cycle is repeated as the relationship continues and is deepened. As well as supporting policy-informed evidence generation and research-aware policymakers, the output-orientated model has been found to be beneficial in fostering the following: a pragmatic starting place for researchers, in often large and complex policy environments; purposeful and specific engagement, encouraging shared expectations; non-transactional engagement around common evidence needs, whereby researchers are not meeting with policymakers with the expectation of receiving funding; built-in translation; time and resource efficiency; relationship-building; mutual learning; policy-invested researchers and research-invested policy-makers; and tangible policy impacts. A case study outlines how the output-orientated approach supported researcher-policymaker collaboration to generate new evidence regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cardiovascular disease risk and to apply this to national guidelines. CONCLUSION: Output-orientated policy engagement provides a potentially useful pragmatic model to catalyse and support partnerships between researchers and policymakers, to increase the policy-relevance and application of epidemiological evidence.

Exploring the evidence base for Communities of Practice in health research and translation: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The translation of research into healthcare practice relies on effective communication between disciplines, however strategies to address the gap between information sharing and knowledge transfer are still under exploration. Communities of Practice (CoP) are informal networks of stakeholders with shared knowledge or endeavour and present an opportunity to address this gap beyond disciplinary boundaries. However, the evidence-base supporting their development, implementation and efficacy in health is not well described. This review explores the evidence underpinning the use of CoP in health research and translation. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. A comprehensive search of health databases and grey literature was performed using keywords and controlled vocabulary. Studies were not restricted by date or research method. RESULTS: A total of 1355 potentially relevant articles were identified through the global search strategy. Following screening, six articles were retained for analysis. Included studies were published between 2002 and 2013 in the United Kingdom (n = 3), Canada (n = 2) and Italy (n = 1). Three papers reported primary research; one used a quantitative methodology, one a qualitative, and one a descriptive evaluation approach. The three remaining papers explored seminal and evolving theories of CoP in the context of knowledge transfer and translation to the health sector. CONCLUSIONS: A paucity of evidence exists regarding the development and efficacy of CoP in health research and translation. Further empirical research is required to determine if communities of practice can enhance the translation of research into clinical practice.

Research translation mentoring for emerging clinician researchers in rural and regional health settings: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Building clinician and organisation-level research translation capacity and capability is fundamental for increasing the implementation of research into health practice and policy and improving health outcomes. Research translation capacity and capability building is particularly crucial in rural and regional settings to address complex problems impacting these socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Programs to build clinicians' research translation capability typically involve training and mentoring. Little is known about the features of and influences on mentorships in the context of training for emerging clinician-researchers working in rural and regional healthcare settings. Research translation mentorships were established as part of the Supporting Translation Research in Rural and Regional settings (STaRR) program developed and delivered in Victoria, Australia from 2020 to 2021. The study sought to address the following research questions: 1) What context-specific types of support do research translation mentors provide to emerging researchers?. 2) How does the mentoring element of a rural research translational training program influence research translation capacity and capability development in rural emerging researchers and mentors, if at all?. 3) How does the mentoring element of the program influence translation capacity and capability at the organisational and regional level, if at all? METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Interviews with individuals involved in the STaRR program took place approximately 12 months after the program and explored participants' experiences of the mentored training. Interviews were undertaken via telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were analysed using a team-based five-stage framework approach. RESULTS: Participants included emerging researchers (n = 9), mentors (n = 5), and managers (n = 4), from five health services and two universities. We identified four themes in the interview data: (1) Mentors play an educative role; (2) Mentoring enhanced by a collaborative environment; (3) Organisational challenges can influence mentorships, and (4) Mentorships help develop research networks and collective research and translation capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Mentorships contributed to the development of research translation capabilities. The capabilities were developed through mentors' deepened understanding of the rural and regional healthcare contexts in which their emerging researchers worked, the broadening and strengthening of rural and regional research networks, and building and sharing research translation knowledge and skills.

Translating research into rural health practice: a qualitative study of perceived capability-building needs.

INTRODUCTION: The timely translation of research into practice and local policy is critical to improving healthcare delivery in rural and regional settings, and remains a concern for researchers, health professionals, health managers and policymakers alike. Successful and sustained research translation does not occur without concerted effort, support and strategies to build research translation capacity and capability. Research capacity comprises individual and organisational capabilities. This study is primarily focused on individual capabilities. Health professionals working in rural and regional settings, where research activity and infrastructure are generally less mature than that seen in metropolitan areas, need additional support and skills to build their capability to engage in translation-focused research. This study aimed to explore rural health research stakeholders' perspectives on capability-building needs for emerging researchers to enable the translation of research into health practice. METHODS: A qualitative description methodology was used to conduct three online focus groups to explore participants' understanding of research translation, and their perceptions of the supports that are needed to build capability for emerging health professional researchers to undertake translation-focused research. Emerging health professional researchers (emerging researchers hereafter) are health professionals who have little or no formal training or experience undertaking research. Data were analysed by a five-stage framework approach. RESULTS: Participants included emerging researchers (n=12), research mentors (n=3) and health managers (n=4) from six rural or regional organisations, including four health services, one university and one primary health network in Victoria, Australia. Participants' conceptualisation of research translation reflected previously documented definitions; that is, research grounded in health practice and characterised by adaptation of existing research evidence to local settings via implementation. Four key themes related to research translation support for rural and regional health researchers were identified: understanding the study and translation context is vital to enacting change; engaging with stakeholders identifies research and translation priorities and suitable approaches; mentor and managerial support assists navigation of research translation activities; and access to clinical and research networks promotes research translation partnerships and collaborations. Participants highlighted the need to identify and train appropriate research mentors and health leaders who can support translation-focused research at the emerging researcher level. The need for training that targets fundamental research translation skills, including systematic processes for engaging stakeholders and collaborative priority setting, and the processes to analyse both the research study and research translation contexts, were also identified as important. CONCLUSION: Given their understanding of the local community and health context, rural and regional health professionals are ideally placed to engage in translation-focused research; however, they require multiple types of research capability development through several levels of influence. This includes support and guidance to ensure their endeavours align with and leverage organisational and regional priorities for research translation. These findings can inform approaches to research capability building through training and resource provision, and organisational infrastructure development and capacity building, to support the rapid translation of research into clinical practice.

Research protocol for impact assessment of a project to scale up food policies in the Pacific.

BACKGROUND: One of the challenges for countries implementing food policy measures has been the difficulty in demonstrating impact and retaining stakeholder support. Consequently, research funded to help countries overcome these challenges should assess impact and translation into practice, particularly in low-resource settings. However, there are still few attempts to prospectively, and comprehensively, assess research impact. This protocol describes a study co-created with project implementers, collaborative investigators and key stakeholders to optimize and monitor the impact of a research project on scaling up food policies in Fiji. METHODS: To develop this protocol, our team of researchers prospectively applied the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT). Activities included (i) developing a logic model to map the pathway to impact and establish domains of benefit; (ii) identifying process and impact indicators for each of these domains; (iii) identifying relevant data for impact indicators and a cost-consequence analysis; and (iv) establishing a process for collecting quantitative and qualitative data to measure progress. Impact assessment data will be collected between September 2022 and December 2024, through reports, routine monitoring activities, group discussions and semi-structured interviews with key implementers and stakeholders. The prospective application of the protocol, and interim and final research impact assessments of each project stream and the project as a whole, will optimize and enable robust measurement of research impact. DISCUSSION: By applying this protocol, we aim to increase understanding of pathways to impact and processes that need to be put in place to achieve this. This impact evaluation will inform future projects with a similar scope and will identify transferable and/or translatable lessons for other Pacific Island states and low- and middle-income countries.

Changing landscape of nutrition and dietetics research? A bibliographic analysis of top-tier published research in 1998 and 2018.

OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to describe and compare study type, research design and translation phase of published research in nutrition and dietetic journals in 1998 and 2018. DESIGN: This was a repeat cross-sectional bibliographic analysis of Nutrition and Dietetics research. All eligible studies in the top eight Nutrition and Dietetics indexed journals in 1998 and 2018 were included. Two independent reviewers coded each study for research design (study type and study design) and translation phase (T0-T4) of the research using seminal texts in the field. SETTING: Not relevant. PARTICIPANTS: Not relevant. RESULTS: The number of publications (1998, n 1030; 2018, n 1016) has not changed over time, but the research type, design and translation phases have. The proportion of intervention studies in 1998 (43·8 %) was significantly higher than 2018 (19·4 %). In 2018, more reviews (46·9 % v. 15·6 % in 1998) and less randomised trials (14·3 % v. 37·8 % in 1998) were published. In regard to translation phase, there was a higher proportion of T2-T4 research in 2018 (18·3 % v. 3·8 % in 1998); however, the proportion of T3/T4 (dissemination, implementation and population-level research) research was still low (<3 %). Our sensitivity analysis with the four journals that remained in the top eight journal across the two time periods found no differences in the research type, design and translation phases across time. CONCLUSIONS: There was a reduction in intervention and T0 publications, alongside higher publication of clinical study designs over time; however, published T3/T4 research in Nutrition and Dietetics is low. A greater focus on publishing interventions and dissemination and implementation may be needed.

Key stakeholder perspectives on the development and real-world implementation of a home-based physical activity program for mothers at risk of postnatal depression: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is a modifiable risk factor for postnatal depression (PND) and programs are needed to enhance PA amongst women at risk of PND. Key stakeholder involvement in informing development and implementation of such programs is vital. However, little research demonstrates key stakeholder insights to inform the design and delivery of PA programs for improving PND. The aim of this study was to explore key stakeholder perspectives on the design and delivery of a home-based PA program for mothers with PND symptoms to inform future real-world implementation and scale-up. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study was undertaken whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from various key stakeholder organisations involved in postnatal PA and/or mental health, public health and policy in Australia (n = 11). Interviews were conducted between September to November 2019 and explored stakeholder perceptions on the design and delivery of a home-based PA program for mothers with PND symptoms. The interview schedule was informed by both the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the PRACTical planning for Implementation and Scale-up (PRACTIS) guide. Data were analysed thematically using both deductive and inductive coding. RESULTS: The relative priority of PND and PA was high for most organisations involved, although none implemented PA programs supporting women at risk of PND. Most stakeholders perceived the program as appealing due to addressing barriers to postnatal PA, although identified some feasibility issues regarding funding and delivery mechanisms. Suggestions for program adaptations included an equity focus (e.g. providing socioeconomically disadvantaged women with a greater program dose; translating web-app based content into various languages). Planned components of the program were suggested to align (i.e. relative advantage) with existing initiatives (e.g. equipment hire for nurseries scheme) and screening systems for PND (timing of referral). Perceived barriers to scale-up included logistics/cost of equipment, organisational capacity demands and safety risks/liability. Perceived enablers to scale-up included linking the program with 'adjunct' programs and services. CONCLUSIONS: While the program was appealing and most organisations could see a role in endorsing and/or referring to the program, funding and delivery mechanisms still need to be identified.

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.