Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32005254›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

Knowledge mobilisation in practice: an evaluation of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.

Abby Haynes, Samantha Rowbotham, Anne Grunseit, Erika Bohn-Goldbaum, Emma Slaytor, Andrew Wilson, Karen Lee, Seanna Davidson, Sonia Wutzke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Mobilising Knowledge for General Practice Decarbonisation: Maximising Impact Through a Multi-Stakeholder Workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abby HaynesThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. abby.haynes@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5703-5683
Samantha RowbothamThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Anne GrunseitThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Erika Bohn-GoldbaumThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Emma SlaytorThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Andrew WilsonThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Karen LeeThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Seanna DavidsonThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Sonia WutzkeThe Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, The Sax Institute, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUSax Institute · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia GNT9100001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCross-sector collaborative partnerships are a vital strategy in efforts to strengthen research-informed policy and practice and may be particularly effective at addressing the complex problems associated with chronic disease prevention. However, there is still a limited understanding of how such partnerships are implemented in practice and how their implementation contributes to outcomes. This paper explores the operationalisation and outcomes of knowledge mobilisation strategies within the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre - a research collaboration between policy-makers, practitioners and researchers.

methodsThe Centre's programme model identifies six knowledge mobilisation strategies that are hypothesised to be essential for achieving its objectives. Using a mixed methods approach combining stakeholder interviews, surveys, participant feedback forms and routine process data over a 5-year period, we describe the structures, resources and activities used to operationalise these strategies and explore if and how they have contributed to proximal outcomes.

resultsResults showed that Centre-produced research, resources, tools and methods were impacting policy formation and funding. Policy-makers reported using new practical methodologies that were helping them to design, implement, evaluate and obtain funding for scaled-up policies and programmes, and co-creating compelling prevention narratives. Some strategies were better implemented and more impactful than others in supporting these outcomes, with variation in who they worked for. The activities used to effect engagement, capacity-building and partnership formation were mostly generating positive results, but co-production could be enhanced by greater shared decision-making. Considerably more work is needed to successfully operationalise knowledge integration and adaptive learning.

conclusionsDescribing how collaborative cross-sector research partnerships are operationalised in practice, and with what effects, can provide important insights into practical strategies for establishing and growing such partnerships and for maximising their contributions to policy. Findings suggest that the Centre has many strengths but could benefit from more inclusive and transparent governance and internal processes that facilitate dialogue about roles, expectations and co-production practices.

Indexed as

Policy MakingAdvisory CommitteesAustraliaCapacity BuildingChronic DiseaseCommunicationGroup ProcessesHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansInformation DisseminationInterinstitutional RelationsLeadershipNoncommunicable DiseasesPreventive Health ServicesResearch Personnelco-productionevaluationevidence-informed policyknowledge mobilisationPartnership research

Identifiers

PMID32005254
PMCPMC6995057
OpenAlexW3013376742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.