A long-term, strategic approach to evidence generation and knowledge translation in NSW, Australia

Thackway, Sarah; Campbell, Danielle; Loppacher, Tina

doi:10.17061/phrp2711702

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with the large body of literature describing the widespread differences between the research and policy worlds [26, 27, 37, 54], whereby researchers most often attempt to ‘push’ their research to policy agencies rather than ascertaining when there may be a policy ‘pull’ for evidence and building at least some of their research agenda to align with this [55, 56]. One mechanism governments in New South Wales [57] and others internationally [58–61] employ to help develop long-term collaborations with researchers and increase the production of policy-relevant research is government-funded research centres. While as yet there have been few evaluations of such initiatives, it seems a potentially promising method of facilitating productive, lasting partnerships.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Participants suggested that trusting, long-term relationships were generally a precursor to co-production. These were seen to be facilitated by policy agencies having a stable workforce; frequent staff changes in policy agencies are frequently cited as a barrier to successful evidence generation partnerships in the literature [31, 42] and policy agency-funded research centres [43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study

Williamson

Tait

Jardali

et al. 2019

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers. Results Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes). Conclusions Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0441-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study

Williamson

Tait

Jardali

et al. 2019

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And if so, what ‘smart’ policy- or practice-relevant research might help society and decision-makers anticipate and avert foreseeable harms caused by disruptive urban mobility, and enable them to put in place early-warning systems to alert them of unforeseen consequences? Conversely, for policymakers and practitioners, are they willing to form long-term trusted research partnerships with transport and health researchers, and to require that evidence is used to inform policy ( Thackway et al, 2017 ; Giles-Corti et al, 2015 )? This section provides examples of potentially fruitful lines of enquiry for researchers and policymakers and practitioners to pursue.…”

Section: Could Smart Research Ensure That We Have mentioning

confidence: 99%

Could smart research ensure healthy people in disrupted cities?

Giles‐Corti

Zapata-Diomedi

Jafari

et al. 2020

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since the late 19th century, city planners have struggled to cope with new types of urban transport and mobility that threatened the existing system, or even rendered it obsolete. Purpose As city planners confront the range of disruptive urban mobilities currently on the horizon, this paper explores how we can draw on a vast body of evidence to anticipate and avoid unintended consequences to people's health and wellbeing . Methods This commentary involved a rapid review of the literature on transport disruption. Results We found that to avoid the unintended consequences of disruption, research, policy and practice must think beyond single issues (such as the risk of chronic disease, injury, or traffic management) and consider the broader consequences of interventions. For example, although autonomous vehicles will probably reduce road trauma, what will be the negative consequences for physical inactivity, sedentary behavior, chronic disease, land use, traffic congestion and commuting patterns? Research is needed that considers and informs how to mitigate the range of potential harms caused by disruptive mobilities. Conclusion In the face of new disruptive mobilities, we must: (a) draw on existing evidence to shape new regulations that address the ‘who, when and where’ rules of introducing new mobilities (such as electric assisted bicycles (e-bikes) and scooters (e-scooters)) of which the health repercussions can be easily anticipated; (b) monitor and evaluate the implementation of any interventions through natural experiment studies; and (c) use innovative research methods (such as agent-based simulation and health-impact-assessment modelling) to assess the likely effects of emerging disruptive mobilities (e.g., autonomous vehicles) on health and wellbeing and on the environment.

show abstract

“…Building on this existing strength in prevention research, the NSW Ministry of Health's population health research portfolio comprises different policy focuses and types of investment. 4 One such investment is the Prevention Research Support Program (PRSP).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Stickney¹,

Campbell²,

Milat³

et al. 2018

Public Health Res Pract

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

A long-term, strategic approach to evidence generation and knowledge translation in NSW, Australia

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study

Could smart research ensure healthy people in disrupted cities?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About