Reaching “an audience that you would never dream of speaking to”: influential public health researchers’ views on the role of news media in influencing policy and public understanding.

While governments and academic institutions urge researchers to engage with news media, traditional academic values of public disengagement have inhibited many from giving high priority to media activity. In this interview-based study, we report on the views about news media engagement and strategies used by 36 peer-voted leading Australian public health researchers in six fields. We consider their views about the role and importance of media in influencing policy; their reflections on effective or ineffective media communicators; and strategies used by these researchers about how to best retain their credibility and influence while engaging with the news media. A willingness and capacity to engage with the mass media was seen as an essential attribute of influential public health researchers.NHMR

Reaching “an audience that you would never dream of speaking to”: influential public health researchers’ views on the role of news media in influencing policy and public understanding.

While governments and academic institutions urge researchers to engage with news media, traditional academic values of public disengagement have inhibited many from giving high priority to media activity. In this interview-based study, we report on the views about news media engagement and strategies used by 36 peer-voted leading Australian public health researchers in six fields. We consider their views about the role and importance of media in influencing policy; their reflections on effective or ineffective media communicators; and strategies used by these researchers about how to best retain their credibility and influence while engaging with the news media. A willingness and capacity to engage with the mass media was seen as an essential attribute of influential public health researchers.NHMR

Challenges in assessing the characteristics of influential public health research.

The development of frameworks to effectively measure both the scientific and social impact of research is a topic of international debate. This paper examines how Australian public health researchers in six fields (alcohol, drugs, injury, obesity, skin cancer and tobacco) classified the scientific and social impact of what they judged to be their five most influential papers. We compared classifications of researchers rated as most influential by their peers with those not as highly ranked. Highly ranked researchers more often indicated social impact characteristics (Χ2 = 8.13; P = 0.004) than their less influential colleagues. Traditional measures of scientific impact (publication in high impact journals and high citations) were nominated by all researchers regardless of peer-nominated research influence status. There was strong consensus on who were the most influential researchers in five of the six research fields examined. This would appear to provide a sound platform on which to base more qualitative, interview or portfolio-based investigations into the complexities of wider conceptions of research and researcher influence

The Vehicle, Fall 1996

Vol. 38, No. 1 Table of Contents DarcyMichael Maypage 1 Time in TimeJoe Howardpage 2 Sestina for DyingAmy Haynespage 3 VioletsSandra Beauchamppage 5 Melody\u27s SongSandra Beauchamppage 7 A Spinning Top ContemplationThomas T. Brownpage 10 Lady of the NightShari Grierpage 13 The Difference Between a Hand and a Killing JarJason S. Loguepage 14 The Bat I KilledMichael Maypage 15 UntitledKimberly Mannypage 16 ReleaseKimberly Mannypage 17 Fountain in the RainEric Chisauskypage 18 War, the Old Fashioned WayCarmella Cosenzapage 19 AloneCarmella Cosenzapage 20 MotelMichael Maypage 21 UntitledAndrea Traxlerpage 22 UntitledMichael Maypage 23 From Across the CourtyardShannon Goodallpage 24 CommunionShannon Goodallpage 26 Please Come HomeKendall W. Baumannpage 27 UntitledMichael Maypage 29 Indefinite SacrificeAmanda Watsonpage 30 Recovery RoomAbby Kollerpage 31 Questioning FaithMichael Kawapage 31 MerulaMichael Maypage 32 Biographiespage 33https://thekeep.eiu.edu/vehicle/1066/thumbnail.jp

Identifying Trustworthy Experts: How Do Policymakers Find and Assess Public Health Researchers Worth Consulting or Collaborating With?

This paper reports data from semi-structured interviews on how 26 Australian civil servants, ministers and ministerial advisors find and evaluate researchers with whom they wish to consult or collaborate. Policymakers valued researchers who had credibility across the three attributes seen as contributing to trustworthiness: competence (an exemplary academic reputation complemented by pragmatism, understanding of government processes, and effective collaboration and communication skills); integrity (independence, “authenticity”, and faithful reporting of research); and benevolence (commitment to the policy reform agenda). The emphases given to these assessment criteria appeared to be shaped in part by policymakers' roles and the type and phase of policy development in which they were engaged. Policymakers are encouraged to reassess their methods for engaging researchers and to maximise information flow and support in these relationships. Researchers who wish to influence policy are advised to develop relationships across the policy community, but also to engage in other complementary strategies for promoting research-informed policy, including the strategic use of mass media

Policymakers\u27 experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: A realist process evaluation

Background: An intervention’s success depends on how participants interact with it in local settings. Process evaluation examines these interactions, indicating why an intervention was or was not effective, and how it (and similar interventions) can be improved for better contextual fit. This is particularly important for innovative trials like Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT), where causal mechanisms are poorly understood. SPIRIT was testing a multi-component intervention designed to increase the capacity of health policymakers to use research. Methods: Our mixed-methods process evaluation sought to explain variation in observed process effects across the six agencies that participated in SPIRIT. Data collection included observations of intervention workshops (n = 59), purposively sampled interviews (n = 76) and participant feedback forms (n = 553). Using a realist approach, data was coded for context-mechanism-process effect configurations (retroductive analysis) by two authors. Results: Intervention workshops were very well received. There was greater variation of views regarding other aspects of SPIRIT such as data collection, communication and the intervention’s overall value. We identified nine inter-related mechanisms that were crucial for engaging participants in these policy settings: (1) Accepting the premise (agreeing with the study’s assumptions); (2) Self-determination (participative choice); (3) The Value Proposition (seeing potential gain); (4) ‘Getting good stuff’ (identifying useful ideas, resources or connections); (5) Self-efficacy (believing ‘we can do this!’); (6) Respect (feeling that SPIRIT understands and values one’s work); (7) Confidence (believing in the study’s integrity and validity); (8) Persuasive leadership (authentic and compelling advocacy from leaders); and (9) Strategic insider facilitation (local translation and mediation). These findings were used to develop tentative explanatory propositions and to revise the programme theory. Conclusion: This paper describes how SPIRIT functioned in six policy agencies, including why strategies that worked well in one site were less effective in others. Findings indicate a complex interaction between participants’ perception of the intervention, shifting contextual factors, and the form that the intervention took in each site. Our propositions provide transferable lessons about contextualised areas of strength and weakness that may be useful in the development and implementation of similar studies

Using Realist Evaluation to Understand Process Outcomes in a COVID-19-Impacted Yoga Intervention Trial: A Worked Example.

Realist evaluation offers a valuable way to understand how interventions function and thus how they can be improved and locally adapted. Consequently, realist evaluation is increasingly conducted in parallel with intervention trials. It comprises a clear philosophical foundation and view of causality, pragmatic mixed data collection methods, and a theory-driven approach in which hypothesised program theories are tested and refined. However, detailed methods for data analysis are seldom well-described in realist studies and no clear method for analysing and presenting realist evaluation data has yet emerged. In this methodological paper we use the worked example of our realist process evaluation of the SAGE yoga trial to illustrate an applied process of data analysis and presentation of findings. We show how we drew on other realist studies for ideas, provide examples of six key tasks involved in conducting a realist process evaluation (including coding data and structuring results) and describe strategies that did not work and our rationale for rejecting them. This detailed account of the decisions and methods that worked for us is intended to provide a practical and informed point of departure for researchers conducting a realist evaluation