Anna Williamson

Background: Researchers and policy-makers are increasingly working together with the goal of creating research that is focused on solving real-world problems; however, knowledge translation (KT) activities, and the partnerships they often require, can be challenging. The aim of this review is to determine the extent of the literature on training programs designed to improve researcher competency in KT and to describe existing training methods that may be used by those hoping to build capacity for partnership research. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched for peer review articles published between January 2000 and July 2019. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they described the development of, curriculum for, or evaluation of KT and/or partnership research training programs. Data extraction included information on evaluation methods, outcomes and implications as well as the format, aims and themes of each capacity-building program. Results: The review identified nine published articles that met inclusion criteria – four papers described training events, two papers described participant experiences of specific learning sessions within a larger training course, two papers described part time secondments for KT capacity-building and one paper described a plan for KT training embedded within an existing research training course. All programs were delivered face-to-face, all included practical skills-building opportunities, and all employed multiple learning modalities such as seminars and small group discussions. Evaluation of the training programs was primarily conducted through qualitative interviews or feedback surveys. Conclusion: To date, few KT training initiatives have been described in the literature and none of these have been rigorously evaluated. The present review offers insights into the planning, development and participant experiences associated with the small number of training initiatives that have been described. There is insufficient evidence available at present to identify the most effective models for training researchers in KT and partnership skills.

Objectives To explore the perceptions of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service (ACCHS) staff involved in providing mental healthcare to Aboriginal young people of the current and ideal pathways to mental healthcare for urban Aboriginal young people attending ACCHSs, and to identify what additional supports staff may need to provide optimal mental healthcare to Aboriginal young people. Design Qualitative interview study conducted during May 2016–2017. Setting Primary care, at two ACCHSs participating in the Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health in New South Wales. Participants Purposive sampling of staff involved in mental healthcare pathways of Aboriginal young people, including general practitioners (GPs), nurses and Aboriginal Health Workers (AHWs). Results All individuals approached for interview (n=21) participated in the study. Four overarching themes and seven sub-themes were identified: availability and use of tools in practice (valuing training and desire for tools and established pathways), targeting the ideal care pathway (initiating care and guiding young people through care), influencing the care pathway (adversities affecting access to care and adapting the care pathway) and assessing future need (appraising service availability). Conclusions Participants desired screening tools, flexible guidelines and training for healthcare providers to support pathways to mental healthcare for Aboriginal young people. Both GPs and AHWs were considered key in identifying children at risk and putting young people onto a pathway to receive appropriate mental healthcare. AHWs were deemed important in keeping young people on the care pathway, and participants felt care pathways could be improved with the addition of dedicated child and adolescent AHWs. The ACCHSs were highlighted as essential to providing culturally appropriate care for Aboriginal young people experiencing mental health problems, and funding for mental health specialists to be based at the ACCHSs was considered a priority.

Early childhood social and emotional development underpins later social, emotional, academic and other outcomes. The first aim of this study was to explore the association between child, family and area-level characteristics associated with developmental vulnerability, amongst Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in their first year of school. The second aim was to quantify the magnitude of the social and emotional developmental inequalities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and the extent to which differences in socioeconomic disadvantage and perinatal characteristics explained this inequality. This retrospective cohort study used cross-sectoral data linkage to identify and follow participants from birth to school age. In this way, social and emotional development was examined in 7,384 Aboriginal and 95,104 non-Aboriginal children who were included in the Australian Early Development Census in their first year of full-time school in New South Wales (NSW) in 2009 or 2012 and had a birth registration and/or perinatal record in NSW. The primary outcome measures were teacher-reported social competence and emotional maturity as measured using the Australian version of the Early Development Instrument. The mean age at the start of the school year for children in the study sample was 5.2 years (SD = 0.36 years). While 84% of Aboriginal children scored favourably - above the vulnerability threshold – for social competence and 88% for emotional maturity, Aboriginal children were twice as likely as non-Aboriginal children to be vulnerable on measures of social development (RR = 2.00; 95%CI, 1.89–2.12) and had 89% more risk of emotional vulnerability (RR = 1.89; 95%CI, 1.77–2.02). The inequality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children was largely explained by differences in the socioeconomic and perinatal health characteristics of children and families. Thus, after adjusting for differences in measures of socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage (Model 2), the relative risk was attenuated to 1.31 (95% CI: 1.23–1.40) on the social competence domain and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.15–1.33) on the emotional maturity domain. Child, family and area-level characteristics associated with vulnerability were identified. Most of the gap in early childhood social and emotional development between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children can be attributed to socioeconomic and early life health disadvantage. Culturally safe health and social policies addressing the socioeconomic and health inequalities experienced by Aboriginal children are urgently required.

Much has been written about the use of evidence in policy; however, there is still little known about whether and how research is engaged with and used in policy development or the impact of reported barriers and facilitators. This paper aims to (1) describe the characteristics of 131 policy documents, (2) describe the ways in which research was engaged with (e.g. was searched for, appraised or generated) and used (e.g. to clarify understanding, persuade others or inform a policy) in the development of these policy documents, and (3) identify the most commonly reported barriers and facilitators and describe their association with research engagement and use. Six health policy and program development agencies based in Sydney, Australia, contributed four recently finalised policy documents for consideration over six measurement periods. Structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with the policymakers most heavily involved in developing each of the 131 policy documents. Interviews covered whether and how research was engaged with and used in the development of the policy product and any barriers or facilitators related to this. Interviews were scored using the empirically validated SAGE tool and thematically analysed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all key variables and comparisons made between agencies. Multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the impact of specific barriers and facilitators on research engagement and use. Our data shows large variations between policy agencies in the types of policy documents produced and the characteristics of these documents. Nevertheless, research engagement and use was generally moderate across agencies. A number of barriers and facilitators to research use were identified. No barriers were significantly associated with any aspects of research engagement or use. Access to consultants and relationships with researchers were both associated with increased research engagement but not use. Thus, access to consultants and relationships with researchers may increase the extent and quality of the evidence considered in policy development. Our findings suggest that those wishing to develop interventions and programs designed to improve the use of evidence in policy agencies might usefully target increasing access to consultants and relationships with researchers in order to increase the extent and quality of the research considered, but that a greater consideration of context might be required to develop strategies to increase evidence use.

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. 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. 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). 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.

This paper describes the trial of a novel intervention, Supporting Policy In health with evidence from Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT). It examines (1) the feasibility of delivering this kind of programme in practice; (2) its acceptability to participants; (3) the impact of the programme on the capacity of policy agencies to engage with research; and (4) the engagement with and use of research by policy agencies. SPIRIT was a multifaceted, highly tailored, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, trial involving six health policy agencies in Sydney, Australia. Agencies were randomly allocated to one of three start dates to receive the 1-year intervention programme. SPIRIT included audit, feedback and goal setting; a leadership programme; staff training; the opportunity to test systems to facilitate research use in policies; and exchange with researchers. Outcome measures were collected at each agency every 6 months for 30 months. Participation in SPIRIT was associated with significant increases in research use capacity at staff and agency levels. Staff reported increased confidence in research use skills, and agency leaders reported more extensive systems and structures in place to support research use. Self-report data suggested there was also an increase in tactical research use among agency staff. Given the relatively small numbers of participating agencies and the complexity of their contexts, findings suggest it is possible to effect change in the way policy agencies approach the use of research. This is supported by the responses on the other trial measures; while these were not statistically significant, on 18 of the 20 different measures used, the changes observed were consistent with the hypothesised intervention effect (that is, positive impacts). As an early test of an innovative approach, SPIRIT has demonstrated that it is possible to increase research engagement and use in policy agencies. While more work is needed to establish the replicability and generalisability of these findings, this trial suggests that building staff skills and organisational structures may be effective in increasing evidence use.

Objectives The aim of the current study is to quantify mental health-related emergency department (ED) presentations and hospitalisations, and associated child and family characteristics, in children recruited through four Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations. Setting Four Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services that deliver primary care. All services were located in urban or large regional centres in New South Wales, Australia. Participants 1476 Aboriginal children aged 0–17 years at recruitment to the Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health. Primary outcome measures ED presentations and hospital admissions with a primary mental health diagnosis obtained via linkage to population health datasets. Results Over a median of 6-year follow-up, there were 96 ED presentations affecting 62 children (10.7/1000 person-years) and 49 hospitalisations affecting 34 children (5.5/1000 person-years) for mental health conditions. Presentations/admissions increased with age. ED presentation was increased with: living in foster versus parental care (adjusted rate ratio (RR)=3.97, 95% CrI 1.26 to 11.80); high versus low baseline child emotional/behavioural problems (adjusted RR=2.93, 95% CrI 1.50 to 6.10); and caregiver chronic health conditions versus none (adjusted RR=2.81, 95% CrI 1.31 to 6.63). Hospitalisations were significantly increased with caregiver unemployment versus home duties (adjusted RR=4.48, 95% CrI 1.26 to 17.94) and caregiver chronic health problems versus none (adjusted RR=3.83, 95% CrI 1.33 to 12.12). Conclusions Tertiary care for mental health issues was relatively common among participating Aboriginal children, with risk elevated for those living in foster care, with prior mental health and behavioural problems and with carers with chronic illness and/or unemployment. While this study suggests high rates of serious mental health events among children from participating communities, the optimum means for reducing these rates, and the need for tertiary care, has not yet been determined. Such information is urgently required to inform policy and programmes to support Aboriginal child and adolescent mental health.

Health policy-making can benefit from more effective use of research. In many policy settings there is scope to increase capacity for using research individually and organisationally, but little is known about what strategies work best in which circumstances. This review addresses the question: What causal mechanisms can best explain the observed outcomes of interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research in their work? Articles were identified from three available reviews and two databases (PAIS and WoS; 1999–2016). Using a realist approach, articles were reviewed for information about contexts, outcomes (including process effects) and possible causal mechanisms. Strategy + Context + Mechanism = Outcomes (SCMO) configurations were developed, drawing on theory and findings from other studies to develop tentative hypotheses that might be applicable across a range of intervention sites. We found 22 studies that spanned 18 countries. There were two dominant design strategies (needs-based tailoring and multi-component design) and 18 intervention strategies targeting four domains of capacity, namely access to research, skills improvement, systems improvement and interaction. Many potential mechanisms were identified as well as some enduring contextual characteristics that all interventions should consider. The evidence was variable, but the SCMO analysis suggested that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising. Systems supports and platforms for cross-sector collaboration are likely to play crucial roles. Gaps in the literature are discussed. This exploratory review tentatively posits causal mechanisms that might explain how intervention strategies work in different contexts to build capacity for using research in policy-making.

This paper explores the enormous variation in views, championing behaviours and impacts of liaison people: staff nominated to facilitate, tailor and promote SPIRIT (a research utilisation intervention trial in six Australian health policy agencies). Liaison people made cost/benefit analyses: they weighed the value of participation against its risks and demands in the context of organisational goals, knowledge utilisation norms, epistemology and leadership support. There was a degree of self-fulfilment (organisations got what they put in), but SPIRIT could not always be tailored to address local knowledge needs. We present nine propositions for identifying and supporting liaison people in similar interventions.

To (1) gain an understanding of current trajectories of Aboriginal young people through the mental health care system in Australia; (2) summarize what mental health care pathways have been developed or evaluated to guide mental health care delivery for Aboriginal young people; and (3) identify barriers and facilitators to the adoption of effective mental health care pathways for Aboriginal young people. Databases, including, AMED, Embase, Global Health, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Healthstar, MEDLINE, PsychINFO via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, The Cochrane Library, Indigenous Collections, Informit and Health Systems Evidence, were searched to identify evidence concerning mental health service delivery for Aboriginal young people in a primary care setting. We did not identify any reports or publications explicitly describing the current trajectories of Aboriginal young people through the mental health care system in Australia. Furthermore, we were unable to locate any mental health-related treatment pathways which had been explicitly developed or modified to meet the needs of Aboriginal young people. The use of appropriate assessment tools, engagement of family and community, flexibility, and central coordination have been identified in the literature as potential facilitators of culturally appropriate mental health service delivery for Aboriginal children and adolescents. Aboriginal children and adolescents may face additional difficulties navigating the mental health care system in Australia due to complex socio-cultural factors and the dearth of culturally appropriate and effective mental-health related treatment pathways. Additional research regarding (1) practice trends in Aboriginal settings and (2) how Aboriginal child and adolescent mental health can be improved is urgently needed to inform clinical practice and improve mental health service access and outcomes for Aboriginal young people in Australia.