ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018
Knowledge mobilisation for chronic disease prevention: the case of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to cross-sector partnerships in promoting physical activity.Perspectives in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Multidisciplinary perspectives on cumulative impact assessment for vulnerable communities: expert elicitation using a Delphi method.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2025Article
- Combining public health evidence, policy experience and communications expertise to inform preventive health: reflections on a novel method of knowledge synthesis.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Systems Thinking and Complexity Science Methods and the Policy Process in Non-communicable Disease Prevention: A Systematic Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Co-Produce, Co-Design, Co-Create, or Co-Construct-Who Does It and How Is It Done in Chronic Disease Prevention? A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Using developmental evaluation to support knowledge translation: reflections from a large-scale quality improvement project in Indigenous primary healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- ActEarly: a City Collaboratory approach to early promotion of good health and wellbeing.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCross-sectoral, multidisciplinary partnership research is considered one of the most effective means of facilitating research-informed policy and practice, particularly for addressing complex problems such as chronic disease. Successful research partnerships tend to be underpinned by a range of features that enable knowledge mobilisation (KMb), seeking to connect academic researchers with decision-makers and practitioners to improve the nature, quality and use of research. This paper contributes to the growing discourse on partnership approaches by illustrating how knowledge mobilisation strategies are operationalised within the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (the Centre), a national collaboration of academics, policy-makers and practitioners established to develop systems approaches for the prevention of lifestyle-related chronic diseases.
methodsWe undertook interviews with key academics, policy, and practice partners and funding representatives at the mid-point of the Centre's initial 5-year funding cycle. We aimed to explore how the Centre is functioning in practice, to develop a conceptual model of KMb within the Centre for use in further evaluation, and to identify ways of strengthening our approach to partnership research. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used to identify the key mechanisms underpinning the Centre's KMb approach.
resultsSix key mechanisms appeared to facilitate KMb within our Centre, namely Engagement, Partnerships, Co-production, Capacity and Skills, Knowledge Integration, and Adaptive Learning and Improvement. We developed a conceptual model that articulated these mechanisms in relation to the structures and processes that support them, as well as the Centre's goals. Findings also informed adaptations designed to strengthen the Centre.
conclusionsFindings provide insights into the practical realities of operationalising KMb strategies within a research partnership. Overall, the centre is perceived to be progressing towards its KMb goals, but challenges include stakeholders from different settings understanding each other's contexts and working together effectively, and ensuring knowledge generated across different projects within the Centre is integrated into a more comprehensive understanding of chronic disease prevention policy and practice. Our conceptual model is now informing ongoing developmental evaluation activities within the Centre, where it is being tested and refined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.