System Action Learning: Reorientating Practice for System Change in Preventive Health.

It is now widely accepted that many of the problems we face in public health are complex, from chronic disease to COVID-19. To grapple with such complexity, researchers have turned to both complexity science and systems thinking to better understand the problems and their context. Less work, however, has focused on the nature of complex solutions, or intervention design, when tackling complex problems. This paper explores the nature of system intervention design through case illustrations of system action learning from a large systems level chronic disease prevention study in Australia. The research team worked with community partners in the design and implementation of a process of system action learning designed to reflect on existing initiatives and to reorient practice towards responses informed by system level insights and action. We were able to observe and document changes in the mental models and actions of practitioners and in doing so shine a light on what may be possible once we turn our attention to the nature and practice of system interventions.

The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs.

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous cancer with widely varying levels of morbidity and mortality. Approaches to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and management differ around the world. To identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain, Movember conducted a landscape analysis with the aim of maximizing the effect of future research investment through global collaborative efforts and partnerships. A global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy. Men with prostate cancer and thought leaders from a variety of disciplines provided a range of key insights through a range of interviews. Insights were prioritized against predetermined criteria to understand the areas of greatest unmet need. From these efforts, 17 research needs in prostate cancer were agreed on and prioritized, and 3 received the maximum prioritization score by the LAC: first, to establish more sensitive and specific tests to improve disease screening and diagnosis; second, to develop indicators to better stratify low-risk prostate cancer for determining which men should go on active surveillance; and third, to integrate companion diagnostics into randomized clinical trials to enable prediction of treatment response. On the basis of the findings from the landscape analysis, Movember will now have an increased focus on addressing the specific research needs that have been identified, with particular investment in research efforts that reduce disease progression and lead to improved therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners' Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle 'wicked' policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. RESULTS: All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. CONCLUSION: These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.

Using a 'rich picture' to facilitate systems thinking in research coproduction.

BACKGROUND: In coproduction research, traditional 'end-users' are involved in the entire research process. The aim is to facilitate research translation by improving the timeliness and relevance of research. Because end-users often come from multiple sectors and hold diverse perspectives and priorities, involving them in coproduction can be challenging. Tools and approaches are needed to support coproduction teams to successfully navigate divergent viewpoints while producing rigorous but meaningful research outcomes. Rich pictures are a systems thinking tool to help make sense of complexity. In this paper, we describe how we developed and applied a 'rich picture' in a coproduction project with policy-level partners. METHODS: Guided by systems thinking principles, we conducted a systemic analysis of ethnographic fieldnotes collected as part of a broader study that examined the dynamics between an IT system and the implementation of the state-wide childhood obesity prevention programmes it was designed to monitor. Translating qualitative themes into metaphor and imagery, we created a visual depiction of the system to reflect the experience of the system's users (health promotion practitioners) and facilitated a workshop with policy-level programme administrators (i.e. participants, n = 7). Our aim was to increase the transparency of the system for our research partners and to spark new insights to improve the quality of programme implementation. RESULTS: Guided by provocative questions, participants discussed and challenged each other's thinking on the current functioning of the system. They identified future lines of inquiry to explore for quality improvement. Participants strongly agreed that the picture was a constructive way to engage with the ethnographic data but were challenged by the information and its implications. The opportunity for participants to co-learn from each other as well as from the picture was an added value. CONCLUSION: In the context of the facilitated workshop, the rich picture enabled research partners to engage with complex research findings and gain new insights. Its value was harnessed via the guided participatory process. This demonstrates the importance that, in the future, such tools should be accompanied by practices that enable participants to think with and apply systems thinking concepts and principles.

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

BACKGROUND: Cross-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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Results 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. CONCLUSIONS: Describing 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.

Systems approaches to population health in Canada: how have they been applied, and what are the insights and future implications for practice?

OBJECTIVES: Systems approaches are promising yet under-utilized methods for tackling complex public health problems. This paper explores how systems approaches are understood in the public health literature, how they have been applied in Canada, the insights, and implications for future practice. METHODS: A rapid review of the literature, including a content analysis and cross-case comparison, was conducted. It was used to distinguish concepts of systems approaches and identify case examples of the application of systems approaches in Canada. Seven cases with a population health perspective (non-health care related) were prioritized for analysis. RESULTS: Systems approaches are a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods that aim to understand a system of interest. Most case examples demonstrated systems thinking methods. Systems science methods were applied predominantly in health care. Only one case of systems science for the social determinants of health was found. Findings indicate that systems approaches were utilized because traditional methods were proving ineffective. These approaches can introduce new ways of thinking, enable collaboration across diverse stakeholders, identify where best to focus action and with what intensity, and provide more robust evidence for decision-making. CONCLUSION: There is a need to build capacity among practitioners for more widespread adoption and use of systems approaches. Population health professionals need to move beyond reductionist approaches, generate more case examples, and use an iterative evaluation approach that prioritizes the application of processes. This will provide further insight into the usefulness of systems approaches as effective methods to address complex health problems.

Knowledge mobilisation for chronic disease prevention: the case of the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre.

BACKGROUND: Cross-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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Six 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. CONCLUSIONS: Findings 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.

The Changing Role of ENGOs in Water Governance: Institutional Entrepreneurs?

The changing role of the state in the last quarter century has been an important contemporary concern for policy makers, scholars, and the public. Equally, there is increasing recognition among governance scholars that nongovernment actors are exerting new kinds of influence over governance systems and contributing in novel ways to governance processes. The role of environmental nongovernmental organizations (ENGOs) is particularly pertinent given the continued involvement of ENGOs within collaborative, adaptive, and co-management governance, across several contexts and regions. This paper uses an analytical framework derived from recent studies on institutional entrepreneurs, to examine the skills ENGOs are applying in order to orchestrate change. An empirical case of governance for water in Canada's Lake Simcoe region provides the foundation for the research. Drawing on a mixed methods approach, the research finds that ENGOs in Lake Simcoe have taken on a role as an institutional entrepreneur, and thereby have altered the relationship between governance actors in this setting. A key outcome of their actions is a more dominant, engaged, and influential role for ENGOs in a critical, regional governance system.