NATIONAL PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY:
ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
MacDonald Wells Consulting
Table of Contents
ANPHA PREVENTIVE HEALTH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ............. 1
MacDonald Wells Consulting .................................................................................................................. 1
Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Background .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Key findings.................................................................................................................................................... 4
Strategy for preventive health research ........................................................................................ 4
Research...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Systems and infrastructure................................................................................................................. 5
Capability.................................................................................................................................................... 6
Culture ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Role of ANPHA .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Issues for developing the National Preventive Health Research Strategy ...................... 7
Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Terms of Reference ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Approach to the analysis of consultations and submissions ..................................................... 9
Findings of the consultations and analysis ......................................................................................... 10
General comments.................................................................................................................................... 10
Background and preamble of the Strategy..................................................................................... 10
The Strategy framework ........................................................................................................................ 10
Principles...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Research priorities ................................................................................................................................... 13
Translational research ....................................................................................................................... 13
Knowledge and policy cycle............................................................................................................. 15
Proposed priorities ............................................................................................................................. 16
Return on investment ............................................................................................................................. 19
Evidence synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 20
System and infrastructure development ............................................................................................. 20
A governance structure for the preventive health research system ................................... 20
Creating national infrastructure for data to underpin preventive health research ...... 20
Supportive approaches to research funding for preventive health ..................................... 22
Preventive health research funding .................................................................................................. 23
Evaluation .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Funding for collaboration...................................................................................................................... 24
Incentives and drivers ............................................................................................................................ 25
Researcher and user capability ........................................................................................................... 25
Culture to support the Strategy ............................................................................................................... 28
Relationship of each stakeholder category to the National Preventive Health Research
Strategy .............................................................................................................................................................. 28
Evaluation of the Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 30
Role of ANPHA ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Issues for the Preventive Health Research Strategy ....................................................................... 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 33
Appendix A—A systems approach to change .................................................................................... 34
Appendix B—Submission authors.......................................................................................................... 35
Appendix C—Stakeholders and their potential involvement in the Preventive Health
Research Strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 37
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................. 45
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
3
Executive summary
Background
The Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA) commissioned Macdonald Wells
Pty Ltd to review the outcomes from consultations ANPHA had conducted on developing the
National Preventive Health Research Strategy (the Strategy). The purpose was to identify
issues arising from the consultations and their implications for the Strategy.
Method
The following approach was taken:
a. The written submissions and reports of interviews with key informants were
analysed according to a systems model based according to the McKinsey 7S
framework. The model is shown at Appendix A.
b. Additional interviews were conducted with key informants, including from outside
the health sector.
c. Discussions were held with the ANPHA Expert Committee on Research and
committee members were interviewed.
d. A brief, targeted review of literature was undertaken to inform thinking on specific
aspects of the submissions.
e. Discussions were held with relevant ANPHA staff.
Information was captured and analysed under the following category headings: Strategy;
Systems and Infrastructure; Capability; and Culture. All of the elements required for
comprehensive Strategy development are incorporated under these headings.
Key findings
Strategy for preventive health research
While they provided suggestions on strategy detail, respondents strongly supported the
need for a national preventive health research Strategy and the approach proposed by
ANPHA in its 2011 Interim Strategy. The premises most widely supported were that:

The research strategy should be a national strategy involving all stakeholders and
not just a strategy for ANPHA.

The purpose of the Strategy should clearly set out the overall contribution of
research to improved health for Australians; the roles of the various stakeholders
including governments, the community, funders of research, research institutions
and researchers; and the particular sub-strategies in relation to research priorities,
infrastructure and capacity building and linking research with population and policy
needs.

The role of ANPHA within the broader Strategy should be clearly identified.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
4

The Strategy needs to be inclusive, involving sectors outside health, and promote
understanding of the need for and the role of a health prevention system.

The Strategy should focus on evidence to promote health building rather than
disease cure.

The Strategy should support strategic priority policy or problem-based approaches.

Emphasis must be placed on communicating research findings to the general public
and to stakeholders.
Research
In terms of the research priorities, there were several key points of agreement on key
priorities and strategies. These included:

Conducting high priority translation research to support policy and program
development.

Building on existing information. Many submissions urged analysis of what exists, as
a first step in exploring what to do next.

Filling evidence gaps.

Developing ongoing working relationships between users (decision makers at all
levels) and researchers to build understanding among all partners of the nature of
user needs and how research can inform decision-making in specific contexts.

Improving intervention design by better understanding the implementation factors
and conditions for change across different community contexts.

Enhancing the interest and capacity of researchers from a range of fields and
policy/decision makers to work together so that research is better targeted to
design and implementation needs.
Major priority approaches were:

Broaden the scope from the priority areas of alcohol, tobacco and obesity and to
produce new information across a spectrum of topics such as mental health; all
drugs; healthy ageing including productive mid-life; and large studies to support
legislative and policy such as research into constituents of processed food and its
contribution to obesity.

Foster more comprehensive or different research approaches, such as whole-of-life
approaches, research-based in community settings and involving community actors
such as consumers and service providers.
Developing the methods and approaches to support whole-of-system design, wholeof-government action and Strategy implementation research and evaluation.

Systems and infrastructure
Respondents identified a need to for improved approaches to information collection and
analysis to support a comprehensive and effective preventive health research approach. Key
aspects included the need for improved access to routinely-collected data; and capacity for
data linkage and nationally consistent approaches to data collected for surveillance and
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
5
other specific purposes. Funding for longitudinal and cohort data collections and for biorepositories was also a priority.
There were concerns that current funding arrangements by the major research funders,
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Research Council
(ARC), discouraged researchers from undertaking preventive health research. Peer review
systems that are discipline–based and focus on research track record do not encourage
either multidisciplinary team approaches or emphasise research translation, both of which
are essential features of preventive health research. Incentives for academics under
institutional performance assessment schemes (such as the national scheme for assessing
universities’ research performance, Excellence in Research Australia [ERA]) do not recognize
research impact as a component of excellence and tend to discourage collaboration
between institutions because of the tight nexus between institutional performance and
funding and reputation.
Evaluation of policies and programs was seen as a high priority for research infrastructure
development. Many respondents advocated national standards for rigorous evaluation and
commitments from governments to have programs independently evaluated according to
those standards. It was also argued that there should be more research into evaluation.
Capability
There was a commonly shared view about the need for and the means of achieving a
suitably skilled research workforce to enable strategic objectives and research priorities to
be met. Development programs that support careers in translational research and team
performance as well as individual performance need to be developed. Dedicated funding for
Australian researchers to collaborate with international researchers was seen as a high
priority for building Australia’s research workforce in preventive health. Specific programs to
increase capacity in such areas as data linkage and analysis were also identified as a
preventive health research workforce priority.
There is support for a specific preventive health research workforce development program
including components such as traineeships; programs to encourage researchers and users to
collaborate in the design and conduct of research; and translation of findings into policies
and programs.
Culture
Implicit in many responses was the need to change research and policy cultures if preventive
health research is to better inform policies and programs.
The current cultures in both research and policy arenas are largely products of historical
organisational and institutional silos that persist and are reinforced by funding and other
practices.
Role of ANPHA
For most respondents, ANPHA was seen as a leader and catalyst in supporting the
development of the preventive health research field. This ongoing role requires facilitating
the community and decision makers in working together on determining research priorities
and approaches.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
6
ANPHA would also play an important role in advocating for preventive health research
including for funding and infrastructure support. Partnering with funding agencies in
supporting suitable funding and assessment processes to ensure quality and relevant
research would be a key approach.
Several respondents favoured ANPHA having an information brokerage role – a central
source for information and advice for researchers and decision makers. ANPHA would
provide a link between the two for sharing information and understanding the relative
contributions of each sector and ensuring that the community and other sectors’
perspectives are taken into account.
ANPHA is also perceived as a key facilitator in the development of community health literacy
in preventive health to ensure that relevant research evidence is communicated effectively
across the community to inform debate and aid decision making.
Issues for developing the National Preventive Health Research Strategy
There is strong support for a national strategy to draw together the currently fragmented
research activities and approaches.
The key issues include:
 The Strategy should be national and articulate the roles of all players and the shared
goals and expected outcomes from the Strategy in short, medium and long term horizons
 ANPHA’s role in research as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive
Health (NPAPH) will need to be refined, agreed and marketed well.
 ANPHA, the NPAPH and other stakeholders should consider and agree their priorities for
the Strategy among the spectrum of identified needs.
 The Strategy should provide a clear and strategic focus for all partners and pathways to
long-term outcomes. Progress measures, including outputs, should be clearly identified.
 The Strategy should recognise that outcomes will need time to be achieved. A ten to
fifteen year time frame should be considered.
 ANPHA needs to consider how it can work optimally to support prevention research and
consider how to mobilise other parties and stakeholders (NPAPH, universities, NHMRC,
ARC, and a broad range of sectors) to participate in a more purposeful way in this effort.
 Complementary roles of all members of the NPAPH will need to be explored and agreed.
 Governance structures will need to be developed to lead and ensure implementation and
evaluation of agreed actions.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
7
Background
ANPHA started developing the National Preventive Health Research Strategy in June 2011.
This stemmed from Expert Committee on Research (ECR) advice that a national strategy was
needed to direct and facilitate the necessary infrastructure and capacity building to enable
translational research to occur for the policy results required. Although it was aware of the
guidance required by ANPHA for expenditure of the Research Fund the ECR thought that
there was an additional need for a national strategy under which actions for a translational
research system could be prioritised.
Two rounds of consultation have been undertaken, with the second aiming to broaden the
input. Public calls for submission were supplemented by consultations with Commonwealth,
state and territory governments and with other key stakeholders. The development process
to-date has been:

Development of an interim Strategy (September 2011).

Interviews with selected stakeholders (November 2011 – January 2012) and
production of a report of these interviews.

Call for submissions with release of the consultation draft and interview report (July
– September 2012).

Collation and categorisation of the 56 submissions (October 2012).

Visits to five states and territories for focus group discussions (September – October
2012).

Engagement of MacDonald Wells and presentation of analysis to- date to ECR (Nov
2012).
Terms of Reference
The contractor is required to provide a service to ANPHA to ensure stakeholder views are
taken into account and create ideas that can be harnessed in the process of finalising the
Strategy. The report will:
a. Describe the consultation process, taking into account all submissions and other
material generated from consultations.
b. Categorise and describe the stakeholders who provided comment.
c. Explain the expected relationship of each stakeholder category to the final Strategy
d. Summarise and categorise stakeholders’ suggested actions and research priorities
that could potentially be included in the final version of the Strategy.
e. Reflect on stakeholder input and how this might have already been addressed in
other preventive health research strategies in Australia.
f.
Summarise any comments from feedback about how the Strategy may contribute to
collaboration and coordination for knowledge-creators and knowledge-users in
translating preventive health research into policy and programs.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
8
g. Report on any suggestions made during the consultation process about how the
Strategy could be evaluated.
h. Highlight both positive and negative comments and any emerging themes that arise
through the submissions that may need addressing or elaborating.
Approach to the analysis of consultations and submissions
The use of a systems approach was endorsed by ANPHA’s Expert Committee on Research
(Appendix A). The following information is structured according to the categories of
Strategy; Systems and Infrastructure; Capability; and Culture. All of the elements required
for comprehensive strategy development are included in that model.
The following approach was undertaken in the development of this report.

Analysis of submissions to ANPHA about the Preventive Health Research Strategy.
The 56 respondents for the Strategy consultation included: Australian and state
government health departments; a variety of researchers; health promotion
agencies such as Vic Health; non-government organisations; disease-specific, and
group–specific advocacy groups; industry (health-insurance, weight loss and fitness);
the Public Health Association; Drinkwise; professional associations; and consumers.
Only one Indigenous-specific organisation made a submission—the Victorian
Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation Inc (VACCHO). Details of the
submission authors are at Appendix B
There were no submissions from human services agencies such as the Department
of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). This is of
concern as ‘healthy public policy’ and associated initiatives (policies and
interventions which produce health outcomes but are not directly connected to
health strategies e.g. housing, income support, employment and environmental
protection) should be incorporated as important contributors in building Australia’s
health.

Discussions with the Expert Committee on Research and interviews of members..

A review of interview notes of consultations between the ANPHA representatives
and state governments, researchers and other key stakeholders

Interviews with two key stakeholders from FaHCSIA—a department involved with
healthy public policy—were undertaken to ascertain departmental interest and
perspectives on preventive health research.

A brief, targeted review of literature to inform thinking on specific aspects of the
submissions.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
9
Findings of the consultations and analysis
General comments
The submissions and consultations indicated strong support for the development of the
Preventive Health Research Strategy and its stated objectives. It is seen as a mechanism
advocating production of relevant evidence to solve challenging and intransigent societal
problems that threaten health, and to take action on building more protective systems.
Respondents see the potential of the Strategy to make a direct contribution to Australia’s
National Research Priorities, particularly the priority of ‘Promoting and Maintaining Good
Health’. There was a general understanding that promoting good health promotes quality of
life, the ability to increase social and economic participation, and potentially reduce costs to
the economy from illness and disease.
While the views of respondents varied according to their specific roles and interests, this
report attempts to convey their general ideas and proposals for the development of
research capacity; skills; relationships between sectors; and methods for addressing new
challenges.
Background and preamble of the Strategy
While there was general support for the content of the background and preamble, many
believed it should be expanded in scope and detail. The Strategy should incorporate more
about the context, leading to the rationale for more action on research in preventive health.
It should make the case for prevention including commenting on the unsustainable growth
in the costs of health care and outline key challenges in preventive health research. Among
these are: recognition of inequalities in chronic disease; risky health behaviours within the
Australian population; the ageing of the population; and the challenges of improving
Indigenous health status.
The Strategy should also articulate how research would support the objectives of the NPAPH
and the National Research Priorities to achieve a ‘healthy Australia’. As part of this ANPHA’s
role in preventive health research should be clearly articulated alongside roles of other
major players.
The background could be expanded to offer more direction to ANPHA and the agencies it
works with. In particular, for the Strategy to be successful it must have a clearly defined
purpose and scope, be implementable and build on what exists. In particular there was a call
for ANPHA to refine, define and reference its role more clearly in relation to other research
and research funding organisations.
The Strategy framework
Stakeholders believed that the focus of the Strategy should be more prominent and clear
and be jargon-free.
The framework was expressed in terms of ‘primary purposes’ and ‘secondary purposes’.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
10
Primary purposes are to foster research and evaluation which would enable
individuals to make healthy living the norm, enable communities, workplaces,
schools and other institutions to make decisions and implement programs that
enhance living etc.
Secondary purposes are to build on the already strong research and evaluation
capacity in preventive health in Australia.1
Respondents supported the Strategy’s intent.
We welcome and support the commitment to research addressing preventive
strategies at a range of levels: individual, community and workplace, social systems
and regulatory intervention in market activities; and the emphasis on building health
assets and health promotion settings rather than focusing on modifying health and
behavioural deficits ’PHAA 2
We also endorse the secondary focus on capacity building, including the emphasis on
collaborative linkages between research policy and implementation and on effective
evaluation. (PHAA)
A number of respondents thought that ANPHA’s role was more in tune with the secondary
purpose so the order of these objectives should be reversed. Others recommended simpler
language with the use of familiar terms such a purpose, aims and objectives.
It was also suggested that a definition of health promotion be included as a framing issue
and that this be drawn from the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.
Health promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to
improve, their health. To reach a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, an individual or group must be able to identify and to realize aspirations, to
satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is, therefore, seen
as a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept
emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities. Therefore,
health promotion is not just the responsibility of the health sector, but goes beyond
healthy life-styles to well-being.3
A majority of respondents advocated that preventive health should be informed by relevant
evidence. The underpinning research system to build that evidence base should take a
systems approach which might include: large-scale population studies to inform policy;
surveillance of risks and disease; methods of preventing and curtailing the effects of
unnecessary injury and disease; and settings-based research. These might also include
research and evaluation of client-centered multiservice interventions at the local level. A
systems approach would ensure that the various elements were mutually supporting and
coordinated rather than fragmented, as is the case now in Australia.
1
ANPHA National Preventive Health Research Strategy: Consultation Draft , July 2012.
Morgan and Ziglio 2007 ‘Revitalising the evidence base for public health: an assets model’,
Promotion and Education, Vol. 14, pp. 17-22.
3
Available at: www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en
2
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
11
Systems thinking can be more readily incorporated into transdisciplinary approaches to
research that also includes communities and local practitioners who support the principles
of quality, impact, inclusiveness and collaboration.
In encompassing a wide range of fields and disciplines, preventive health research provides
information to support decision making such as the need for regulation, policy services and
systems. In doing so it requires a broad and multidisciplinary approach in such areas as
health and safety, regulatory, economic, socio economic and behavioural perspectives.4
Goldsmith5 denotes ‘four faces of the prevention spectrum as an organisational framework
for economic analysis’. These include

Clinical prevention – includes one-on-one activities involving a heath care provider
and a recipient of care (patient or client), who may accept or decline the service or
recommended health action.

Health promotion – includes interventions delivered at a group or population level
that encourage individual behaviours believed to produce positive health effects and
discourage behaviours that produce negative health effects.

Health protection – includes interventions delivered at an organisational (e.g.
hospital policy), local, provincial, national or international level that reduce health
risks by changing the physical or social environment in which people live, such that
the role of individual beneficiaries of health protection intervention is either passive
or limited to compliance with laws or regulations.

Healthy public policy – includes social or economic interventions that act on the
determinants of health, and thereby affect health but do not have health as the
main policy objective.
The submissions and consultations called for research action on all of the above domains of
prevention. A number discussed the need for research about systemic approaches, which
may include taking into account how all the domains of prevention interact together in the
local context. It was noted that interventions work differently in different contexts, and
understanding of ‘soft systems’, such as community development programs, is important to
understanding what promotes healthy behaviour.
Principles
There was strong support for commitment to the principles of quality, impact, inclusiveness
and collaboration for research. The inclusion of ‘ethical practice’ in research was also
recommended by a number of the respondents.
The principle of research quality was endorsed and further explored. Respondents
recommended that quality of research process and design should be judged not only in
terms of suitability of process and methods but on their impact or their capacity to be used.
4
www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en/
Goldsmith L J, Hutchinson B, Hurley, J 2004, ‘Economic Evaluation across the Four Faces of
Prevention: A Canadian Perspective’, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Working Paper
06-01.
5
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
12
There was strong support for including non-health sector research and decision makers’
perspectives in ‘healthy public policy’. Indeed there was a strong view by some influential
stakeholders that the term ‘preventive health research’ did not make sense and actively
discouraged involvement by key stakeholders across fields of relevant effort outside the
health sector under the broad category of healthy public policy. This view is reinforced by
the fact that no stakeholder outside health participated through the submissions process.
The concept of inclusion should also extend to people who are generating and using
research at community levels – the health promotion practitioners, and community
researchers.
Many welcomed the principle of ‘collaboration’. There was a common view that
collaboration between researchers across disciplines and institutions is essential if the
complex factors affecting health and wellbeing are to be better understood and effective
population level interventions developed. Research will need to address the social,
economic, environmental and locational factors that combine to produce inequalities in
health areas such as obesity, chronic disease and tobacco and problematic alcohol
consumption. Mechanisms need to be found to encourage collaborative approaches to
translational research becoming the norm rather than the exception.
While some respondents seemed to believe that the suggested research priorities should be
a funding responsibility of ANPHA, many reflected the view that preventive health research
is a shared responsibility across governments and sectors, all of whom are engaging in
preventive research through a number of strategies. Most commonly ANPHA’s role is seen
as ‘catalytic’: stimulating research and evaluation; identifying research gaps; building
capacity; and supporting the greater use of research evidence in policy and system
development relating to preventive health. ANPHA’s role is further explored under the
heading ‘Role of ANPHA’.
Research priorities
The following section outlines the key issues raised by the submissions and consultations
regarding the research emphasis and priorities.
Translational research
The Consultation Draft Strategy identifies a goal to ‘facilitate research that will embed
evidence and evidence-creating approaches into prevention efforts Australia-wide’.
The orientation to translational research in the Strategy was strongly supported as one
means to encourage research use, in this case, the take up of evidence by decision makers.
The interpretation of ‘translational research’ varies so it was important either to change the
terminology to reflect the needs of preventive health or to define it for the purpose of the
Strategy. Another term frequently used is ‘implementation research’, which is more suited
to a policy and system context. There is also a need for knowledge translation from research
undertaken upstream of implementation research.
In any case there was strong support for the view that preventive health research should be
designed and structured with potential use in mind.
addressing the implementation of research is a current challenge. Disease prevention
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
13
and health promotion represent major translational opportunities for health and
medical research. (Council of Academic Public Health Institutions)
The following quotes capture the tenor of the discussions which included developing the
mechanisms and relationships to ensure research is relevant to user’s needs
CCV supports investing in evidence for effective strategies to encourage healthier
lifestyle as a primary goal, but stresses that this investment should recognise the
importance of also investing in expert advice about how to convert evidence into
policy. This is because the usability and application of research is equally important
as the existence of good research. (Cancer Council Victoria)
Foster a concerted national effort to improve academic institutions’ and researchers’
understanding of implementation science. (Cancer Council Victoria)
There are two main processes related to translational research: 1) the process which
begins with research generation for population health (studies of efficacy and
effectiveness within a system) through replication, dissemination and
institutionalisation; and 2) research brokerage or communication between
researchers and policy makers. Together these processes work to establish research
priorities. (Bauman, Sydney School of Public Health)
Edwards6notes that interactive approaches between researchers and policy makers covering
both the production and take up of knowledge—that is, when research becomes part of the
decision making processes—seems more effective than the linear production of evidence
followed by policy formulation.
Many noted the complexity of the challenge including for different social and environmental
contexts and that there needed to be investment in structures and processes to reduce the
cultural divides between researchers and users. Many respondents advocated the use of
round tables, secondments, joint-research work and knowledge brokers.
Successful examples were also provided such as the Cancer Council Victoria’s secondments
of government staff to work with them and long-term relationships developing between
drug and alcohol research centres and government. Opportunities for shared experience
between researchers and policy/decision makers are seen as a way to foster communication
between the sectors and across the range of disciplines.
Interaction between policy areas, program managers and service providers—which are all
participations of the service delivery supply chain—frequently requires whole-ofgovernment involvement and this poses even more challenges for interaction between the
sectors. However benefits can accrue such as: streamlining effort, having broader
perspectives to guide the research and its implementation; and for building understanding
between sectors.
The Greater Green Triangle University Department of Rural Health noted that:
… the emphasis on collaboration between researchers and decision-makers is
fundamental, and may perhaps be expanded to highlight the need for collaboration
6
Edwards, M 2010, ‘In search of Useful Research: Demand and Supply Challenges for Policy Makers’,
Public Administration Today, October – December.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
14
within and between sectors – clearly, determinants of health also lie outside the
health sector, so achieving population-level behavioural change and health gains
necessitates intersectoral collaboration and a whole of Government approach.
Encouraging partnerships between and within sectors and disciplines should also be
considered, as a means of reducing duplication of effort, optimising use of human
and economic resources, and facilitating standardised and consistent methodologies.
Moreover, there is a need for efforts to be integrated across jurisdictions. (Greater
Green Triangle University Department of Rural Health).
Much of the discussion has centred on decision maker involvement with the policy and
design of national strategies. However many respondents advocated for inclusion of
community-based research to understand the dynamics that influence the readiness and
receptiveness of communities to benefit from whole-of-population strategies.
In the rolling out of national programs that cannot be adapted to local circumstances
not only disenfranchises local health promotion practitioners, but does also
discourages them from becoming engaged with research. Goodson (2010)
particularly calls for the closing of the gap between researchers and practitioners by
encouraging research that is based in practice, and practice that is based in research.
There is an implication throughout the consultation data and the framework that
‘research translation’ is a one-way process. This ‘top-down’ approach to research
translation needs to be challenged and health promotion practitioners need to be
included in all research processes, including being able to adapt interventions at a
local level to best suit local circumstances. (Central Queensland University)
Knowledge and policy cycle
The initial consultation report’s knowledge and policy cycle—which was adapted from
Lomas7—received a mixed response. Some respondents identified their place in it but others
noted that it was too simple and did not convey the rich relationship-building and role
changes required by effective translational research. Others noted that there was no
recognition of the role of the consumer as a contributor to or as a user of research.
Other approaches, including the work of Edwards referred to above, shed more light on the
complexity of the interrelationships between evidence and policy. Bowen8 and others show
the interplay between a seminal discovery, the nature of its dissemination in both scholarly
and public media, its applicability to a current policy issue, the roles of researchers, policy
advisors and others in building a consensus around action and the willingness of politicians
to invest political capital into policies and programs. This work highlights that evidence is a
relative term and different participants in the research/policy cycle have varying criteria for
what constitutes evidence.
7
Figure 2 in ‘Development of the National Preventive Health Research Strategy: Report of the initial
consultation with key stakeholders’ November – January 2012.
8
Bowen S, Anthony B Z, Sainsbury P, Whitehead M 2009, ‘Killer facts, politics and other influences:
what evidence triggered childhood intervention studies in Australia?’ , Evidence & Policy, Vol. 5 No.1,
pp. 5-32.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
15
Similarly, a review for the UK Government Social Research Unit9 concluded that;
The interviews demonstrated a clear need for policy officials to better understand the
relative merits of different types of evidence, and for analysts to better understand
the needs of, and demands on, policy makers to better provide customer-sensitive
services,” p 7. 10
The work of Kania and Kramer11 highlights the complexity of process and players necessary
to achieve change in practice. They argue that complex problems require a whole–of-system
approach (as distinct from focusing on parts of a system) that will have a ‘collective’ impact
on the system, described as follows:
‘Collective Impact Initiatives are long term commitments by a group of important actors from
different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific problem. Their actions are
supported by a shared measurement system, mutually reinforcing activities, and ongoing
communication, and are staffed by an independent backbone organization.’ (Kania and
Kramer 2011, 39).
Several respondents argued that there was a need for such research and that it had an
impact on design, methods and use. It would necessarily use research translation processes
by involving all the participants in implementation and evidence production.
In commenting on the interaction between the principles and the knowledge framework,
Central Queensland University notes the absence of the mention of community members in
the knowledge cycle and makes the case for the inclusion of health promotion practitioners
and community members as a norm12. Local action is a fundamental approach to health
promotion and research needs to involve practitioners and community members in both the
production and use of research. It also recommends a greater emphasis on inclusion of
health promotion practitioners in the framework and that the arrows represent a two-way
process between all the stakeholders.
Proposed priorities
Three broad categories of research were proposed. The first (A) was oriented to expanding
the knowledge base in particular topic areas, the second (B) focused on more systems-based
approaches to research and (C) proposed a focus on supporting decision making on large
policy questions, Strategy design and implementation. The assumption underpinning this
categorization is that much is known about effective interventions already and large
systemic questions have not been effectively addressed.
(A) Broaden the scope from the priority areas of alcohol, tobacco and obesity and to
produce new information across a spectrum of topics such as mental health; all drugs;
healthy ageing including productive mid-life; and large studies to support legislative and
policy such as research into constituents of processed food and its contribution to obesity.
9
Government Social Research Unit, Analysis for policy: evidence-based policy in practice, HM
Treasury, UK, 2007.
10 Op. Cit.
11 Kania J and Kramer K 2011, ‘Collective Impact’, Stanford Innovation Review, Winter 2011, p. 39.
12
Figure 2 in the Development of ‘National Preventive Health Research Strategy: Report of the initial
consultation with key stakeholders’ November – January 2012.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
16
Other research areas proposed: included neonatal, childhood and adolescent health; ageing
including dementia; nutrition, diet and exercise; medications and drugs; workplace health
and injury; and risk factors relating to major chronic diseases
(B) Capacity to foster more comprehensive or different research approaches, such as
whole-of-life approaches, research-based in community settings and involving community
actors such as consumers and service providers.
In addition to suggestions for priority research areas, many submissions commented on
what might be best described as ‘approaches to research’: that is they advocated for
research approaches that are not disease-based nor aimed at cures for illnesses. They
argued that research should be undertaken into the underlying issues that need to be
addressed to improve the health of the population. The starting point for these approaches
is that there is already a good deal known about the social and economic factors that are
predictive of likely health outcomes for groups within society: the socially and economically
disadvantaged will generally have poorer health than the better-off. The challenge for
research and policy is not to define this problem further but to investigate ways of
mitigating the effects of social disparity … to ‘flatten the gradient’ in health outcomes across
social sectors for reasons of equity and societal and economic gain.
Underpinning this broad approach around social determinants are proposals to study
particular social groups or regions where poor health outcomes are clustered. The argument
is that some groups have been well identified as clearly disadvantaged and some of the key
factors are well known and can be acted upon within current policy parameters.
The following are the key areas identified through the submissions and ANPHA
consultations:
 Social determinants of health and how they interact to support or deter health
promoting behavior.

Whole-of-life approaches to research to understand how to promote health and
continued economic participation as people age.

Population groups: Indigenous; culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD);
disadvantaged; rural and remote; ‘hard to get’ and vulnerable.

‘Whole-of-society’ and ‘whole-of-government’ approaches going beyond the health
sector for both research and implementation.

Focus on risk factors and their mitigation with different groups and settings.

Settings-based research especially to evaluate whole-of-community and nondisease-specific interventions.
Many of these approaches highlight the need to involve those acting in the ‘healthy public
policy domain’ i.e. those addressing issues which are not seen as health problems but have a
strong population health effect. Housing, community support, income protection and
employment are some of these areas.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
17
(C) Developing the methods and approaches to support whole-of-system design, whole-ofgovernment action and Strategy implementation research and evaluation.
A number of respondents felt that the Strategy should address bigger questions, such as
how government and society can create societal and environmental conditions that lead to
healthy environments, foster healthy choices and reduce the chance of making choices
injurious to health. This approach requires understanding and acting on the underpinning
causal factors which many respondents have described generally as the ‘social determinants
of health’.
Evidence must be comprehensive as much as possible and suggest a portfolio of
13
strategies, across all the areas, rather than just single intervention. If
recommendations for policy are sought, or provided, then they must be feasible from
an economic and implementation point of view and provide options for short-,
medium- and long-term strategies.
The Population Health Division of the Victorian Department of Health takes a
systemic or systems approach to preventive health … embed systems thinking into
the way population health measures are developed, implemented and evaluated.
(Victorian Department of Health)
A combination of research strategies and research disciplines is required to
understand the complex intersection of factors affecting health and risk behaviours
to design effective interventions and to evaluate preventive interventions in the real
world setting. (PHAA)
Much of this type of research requires fundamental change to research approaches and to
policy involvement from different funders. This is a challenge for policy makers and funders
for governance, funding and program design approaches. It can also be challenging for
system and program design, particularly the impact on collaboration across sectors and
levels of the system.
Such research would shift the focus from individual health behaviour change to
addressing socio economic causal factors more systematically and creating the
conditions to support individuals and the community to take up health-building
behaviours. It would address the complex and multiple intersecting factors impacting
on behaviours within disadvantaged communities or groups.
Disease prevention and health promotion are best understood as a 100-year view of
policy and practice: controlling disease, building resilience, addressing drivers of
Disease prevention and health promotion research tackles priority problems using
both established and cutting-edge methodologies. Action is required at local,
national, regional and global levels.
Barriers to systemic approaches occur at all levels. Some respondents called particular
attention to both the importance and fragility of local action in prevention.
13
Ritter, A 2011, ‘The role of research evidence in drug policy development in Australia’
PolitickaMisao Vol. 48 No. 5 pp. 141 -142.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
18
Dr Taylor from James Cook University in her submission notes that this situation undermines
the ability to measure the value of community primary prevention because:

inadequacies in measuring intervention outcomes.

funding insecurity for community based programs that rely on short-term funding.

difficulty with collecting longitudinal data.14
She proposes that the research agenda of ANPHA should embrace research about
community involvement in primary prevention. Examples of such research include:

Developing methodologies to evaluate whole-of-community and non-diseasespecific interventions.

Researching how to achieve effective partnerships between communities and the
health sector.

Researching the contextual community factors that affect partnership processes and
the primary prevention interventions.
Respondents noted that current research has only been marginally useful to inform decision
making when major effort is being designed. New approaches to research are required to
cope with the demands of the questions such as how to build systems that support and
sustain pro-health lifestyles throughout all settings, and how to reduce the illness producing
choices. Such research requires research processes to support complex policy processes i.e.
interdisciplinary, problem-based, strategic and multifactorial. Health research is only one
part of the overall effort and some claim, a minor part.
These respondents noted that research process and methods had to take into account the
policy process in that it incorporates evidence from many fields involving whole-ofgovernment effort. This will require cross-sectoral input and collaborative thinking about the
nature of the problem and the information required, and in conjunction with users engage
in collaborative planning, working and reflective practice. Human service agencies in
particular are key stakeholders. All parties will need ongoing active professional
relationships and more collaborative and ongoing effort across the research and evaluation
spectrum.
Return on investment
Economic studies are seen to be fundamental to making the case for the value of having a
more comprehensive system of achieving a healthy society (the objective of preventive
health) in parallel with the competing demands of maintaining a health care system to treat
illness. Stakeholders are supportive of an emphasis on economic studies and the further
development of economic methods in the national Strategy.
14
Taylor J, Braunack-Mayer A, Cargo M, Larkins S, Preston R 2012, ‘A Role for Communities in Primary
Prevention of Chronic Illness?; Case Studies in Regional Australia’ Qualitative Health Research,
Accepted July 12.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
19
Evidence synthesis
Many respondents urged that before undertaking new research, a priority should be
assessing the evidence we already have. This will require a mix of approaches including
research around implementation and consensus conferences.
… the highest priority in the research area DrinkWise Australia is concerned with is
not research to discover what we must do; there is widespread agreement about
what needs to be done. The highest priority is for applied policy-driven research that
helps us understand what interventions work best, for which population sub-groups
and under what conditions …
If the proposed Strategy simply fosters more of the same, that is investment in a
project-based approach to preventive health research funded through the current
mix of government and non- government sources, Australia will continue to face the
same problems with uncoordinated underinvestment, and a less than optimal impact
of findings on policy and practice in five years’ time. (Drinkwise).
Many respondents pointed to a burgeoning investment in evidence synthesis to identify
good practice from research and to identify where there are gaps in knowledge. Users and
respondents have recommended the extension of this capacity as a priority.
System and infrastructure development
Governance of the Strategy and its implementation
Governance in the context of this Strategy involves the processes of gaining authorization
for the Strategy and agreement on implementation arrangements. The purpose would be to
ensure the establishment of a framework for planning, action and reporting. Features of the
governance arrangements would involve the following.

An inclusive arrangement embracing government, research funding agencies
(NHMRC and ARC), the research community, stakeholder groups (from health and
welfare sectors), industry and consumer groups.

Responsibility for determining the various contributions to the implementation of
the Strategy and agreeing with key players their contributions, timeframes.

A monitoring and reporting role on the progress towards implementing the Strategy.

Revising the Strategy according to an agreed timeframe (e.g. every three years).
ANPHA is seen to be the appropriate body to support the national governance arrangements
providing the ‘spine’ of the Strategy.
Creating national infrastructure for data to underpin preventive health
research
Many respondents commented on the need for and use of a wide range of data as an
essential precondition for effective preventive health policies and programs. These
resources are vital to support effective research for decision making. A key issue is for
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
20
researchers and the public to have knowledge of and affordable access to routinely collected
data and the ability to link data across these sets (within privacy and ethical requirements).
Extensive data are collected nationally, at state levels and within government agencies.
Many data sets are routinely collected for administrative purposes (e.g. Medicare, hospital
services, income and employment, deaths and a whole raft of social data such as
government benefits under federal and state welfare programs). As these data are collected
for administrative purposes (e.g. payment of patient rebates under Medicare) they are
comprehensive and quite accurate. However of themselves they are often not sufficiently
rich to provide information for research into complex issues. Linking and mining these data
sets should be a high priority for preventive health research:
ANPHA should explore, as a matter of priority how the new population health data
linkage capacity in Australia, seed funded by NCRIS [National Collaborative Research
Infrastructure Scheme] can be leveraged to monitor and report on the effects of
exposure to alcohol and patterns of drinking on health and social outcomes, provide
a platform for more cost-effective evaluation of strategies and interventions, and
support both a stronger policy-driven applied and investigator-driven research effort
in the next 10 years. (Drinkwise)
Data are also collected by governments through a variety of surveys for health surveillance
and monitoring purposes. Many respondents pointed out the fragmentation in approaches
with different jurisdictions collecting their own data with little consistency in what data are
collected, frequency of collection and methods of collection. Consequently it is difficult to
build up a national picture or understand variations across jurisdictions. Often collections
are one-off to meet a particular need and do not give a picture of change over time. The
Burden of Disease Study 1993, which has been used as a basis for a broad spectrum of
research is only now being updated.
Respondents commonly called for more nationally consistent data collections, and
longitudinal data sets.
Some respondents also highlighted gaps in current collections. In terms of ANPHA priorities,
a key identified gap in data is the lack of alcohol sales, which is necessary to identify patterns
of drinking and in turn linked to other data sets to understand more clearly the extent of
unsafe drinking and particular consequences (e.g. violence and health effects). Another
important gap data collection was around infant and early childhood sudden and
unexplained deaths, especially as Australia’s rates are concerning.
A common theme in responses related to difficulties in linking data about individuals across
data sets. While there are some technical issues associated in correctly identifying
individuals across different data sets, the key issues have been around privacy and security
of the linked data, the general principle being that data collected for one purpose (e.g.
drivers’ licenses) should not be used for a different purpose (e.g. tracking health status)
without the individual’s informed consent. There have been recent advances in improving
capacity to link data at the national level through the approval by the Commonwealth for
the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) to be a Data Integrating Authority,
enabling it to link identified data and then provide the linked data in de-identified form to
researchers. However many see this as a limited first step only.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
21
One respondent showed clearly the potential for greater activity in this area:
As part of the ANPHA research agenda there would be value in investigating the
potential for monitoring activities to be integrated into long term data collection
systems that allow comparable data to be collected that is comparable across
jurisdictions and provides trends overtime.
Much of the monitoring that has been done in related to obesity (and nutrition and
physical activity) in recent times has occurred through one-off sporadic surveys that
are limited in their comparison with other data collection methods. The ongoing
debates about the best source of data to measure the NPA-PH benchmarks
illustrates this point well.
Given that shifts in physical activity and nutrition are likely to be long-term in nature
it will be important to establish systems that allow for routine data collection that is
consistent across the country and comparable over time. There may be opportunities
by building systematic surveillance systems at currently existing points of contact
with the health system.’ (DHHS, Tasmania)
Another respondent summarised the data access issues as follows:
To some extent data availability (including data linkage) is more of a problem for
researchers than funding. So many more questions could be answered in a timely
and cost-effective manner just by accessing and using national data that already
exists. For example, one major barrier to data access is that individual states and
territories won’t allow AIHW or ABS to release basic details on their data when
pooled at the national level (e.g. geographic area [SLA], Indigenous status, gender
groups). (Consultation)
More generally respondents noted that infrastructure requirements to support effective
preventive health research are broad and under-resourced. This was summed up in the
following comment:
Provide dedicated funding for research platforms and infrastructure that recognise a
broader definition of ‘infrastructure’ to support large scale ambitious Public Health
research initiatives required to take Public Health research to the next level (eg
investing in large long term cohort studies, bio-repositories). (The Council of
Academic Public Health Institutions Australia)
Supportive approaches to research funding for preventive health
Many respondents identified issues with current approaches to research funding that inhibit
health prevention research and identified roles for research funders in improving capacity
for preventive health research. Funding programs must recognise that relevance and impact
are key requirements of quality research in the preventive area. A track record in policy
engagement alongside more traditional academic markers should be a key factor in
assessing grant applications. One respondent commented:
We do not need more research to understand the social determinants of health. We
already know a lot about those. What we need is research that will take the evidence
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
22
we have and identify best how to develop policies and programs that will effectively
tackle the problems. (interview: senior administrator).
This view is supported by an internal analysis by Australian Preventive Health Agency of
NHMRC funding for research into the social determinants of health using a model by Milat et
al (2001)15 that the funding is going mostly to research projects which help define the
problems, not devise solutions, associated with socio-economic determinants.
Research assessment criteria and their influence
A common argument is that the current assessment criteria for peer review by major
research funding agencies (NHMRC and ARC) do not adequately reflect the range of skills
required for preventive health research. The emphasis on academic track record as
measured by previous grant success and peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals
does not rate researchers’ capacity to articulate research findings that are a contribution to
policy and program performance. Research teams that include members with policy and
program skills rather than traditional academic skills are less competitive. Consequently
there is little incentive for researchers to focus on ‘implementation’ research.
The current system … does not encourage innovation within research. Indeed, it is
likely to do the opposite as such a system encourages the reinforcement of
paradigms and processes already established. If the ANPHA is serious about
promoting quality, impact, inclusiveness and collaboration within its research
program, the processes associated with the grant application rounds need to
embrace a peer review system that judges the applications on merit…’. (Central
Queensland University)
Given that research is a global system it may be unwise for Australia to advance too far in
this area unilaterally. However, Australian research funding bodies might well participate
with their global peers in developing rigorous but appropriate assessment approaches to
accommodate the need. As part of this process, discussion with editors of relevant highranking journals could be undertaken to review their assessment processes for research
articles.
Submissions also assert that research-funding agencies need to develop assessment and
funding models that support collaborative programs rather than individual, competitive
researchers and institutions. It is also suggested that specific funds should be identified for
this type of research. The current NHMRC Partnership Centres program referred to above is
a positive step in this direction.
Preventive health research funding
Some respondents suggested increased availability of research funds for preventive health
research. Governments, through competitive commissioning approaches, fund the bulk of
preventive health research and the extent of such funding varies with need and agency
budgets. There is no defined budget for this category of research. The NHMRC has several
funding streams that are appropriate sources for preventive health research including
15
Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S and Curac N 2011 ‘Public health research outputs from
efficacy to dissemination: a bibliometric analysis BMC Public Health Vol. 11 pp. 934-942.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
23
Partnership Grants, Practice Fellowships and the recently-initiated Partnership Centres
funding program. Under the Partnership Centres program, NHMRC matches stakeholder
investment in a research program and stakeholders have a strong role in determining the
research priorities and approaches, as well as ongoing monitoring of performance. One
partnership centre in the preventive health area that has been announced is Systems
Perspectives on Preventing- Lifestyle related Chronic Health Problems.
Evaluation
A key issue with current peer-review approaches is that they do not favour evaluation as a
research approach because evaluation is not a discipline in itself with its own set of
universally-applied principles. In fact most discovery in ‘policy friendly’ research derives
from studying the impacts and outcomes of the policies and programs that have been
applied to particular problems and needs.
Many respondents have welcomed the specific inclusion of evaluation in the Strategy.
Evaluation allows a focus on systematic approaches that are specifically designed to respond
to particular problem or issues. It draws on a range of methodologies; considers the impact
of context specific matters; and allows the use of multisectoral and multidisciplinary
research inputs as well as skills in policy and program analysis. Many have noted the need
for training for researchers in evaluation methods and also for the further development of
standards in evaluation to ensure quality of effort.
Funding approaches need to be built to support the type of research and evaluation
required for preventive health research. These include long-term, collaborative and iterative
research that is responsive to needs, including evaluation of complex community
interventions. There is also a need for reasonably certain funding for longitudinal databases
that extend over decades rather than years. One respondent submitted that:
The National Preventive Health Research Strategy should bring forward new models
of sustained funding rather than the traditional short term grant funding cycle to
enable more sustained development and implementation of solutions particularly in
regard to having an impact on the social determinants of health.(Prevention
Partnership Australia)
Funding for collaboration
Other respondents highlighted the need for research to involve a wide range of
stakeholders, including policy and system managers, service providers and consumers. The
comment from the Greater Green Triangle University Department of Rural Health in
Translational Research under the heading ‘ researcher and user capability’ noted the
complexities of interventions and the need for multiple sources of evidence. Funding for
such approaches is not readily available.
Support for Australian research to leverage capacity and develop innovative research
methodologies through international collaborations is also lacking This support could include
investing in improved communications technologies and programs to encourage exchanges
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
24
of researchers across countries. Some initiatives around comparative studies between
Australia and Canada provide models on which broader programs could be developed.16
The following comment illustrates other possible approaches:
[There is a need to] Provide dedicated research funds for leveraging international
funding partnerships on strategic global health priorities. Previous NHMRC bids to
partner with larger international funding bodies failed, but success may yet be
possible if we partner strategically based on shared health concerns that require a
global solution, and where Australia offers world- leading research expertise and
research infrastructure (e.g., large-scale population-based interventions, systems
approaches). (The Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australia).
Incentives and drivers
To attract researchers into policy relevant research requires reasonable academic prospects
in this area, which partly goes to developing appropriate academic recognition of research
track record in relevant fields and development of career pathways that will allow a more
interactive relationship with policy stakeholders, e.g. through movement between research
environments and policy environments at various career points.
Researcher and user capability
Preventive health research capability refers to the development of skills of both researchers
and decision makers from multiple domains to work effectively together to produce
research that is useful and used to inform policy and practice. The development of
relationships between researchers and users is seen to be important in generating mutual
responsiveness.
A common theme raised though the submissions and consultations was the need to build
greater research capability in the area of preventive health. Proposals related both to
building capacity of researchers to undertake appropriate research in collaboration with
policy/decision maker stakeholders and from policy stakeholders to understand better how
research evidence can inform their processes.
From the perspective of researchers’ capacities the following key issues were identified:
16

Researchers need to acquire skills in relating research evidence to policy concerns.
Current incentives encourage researchers to focus more on methodology than on
relevance and possible impact of findings. ‘Slicing and dicing’ of research into
increasingly narrow questions with findings written up in smaller ‘pieces’ to
maximize publications takes researchers away from examining the big and complex
questions. The academic imperatives draw researchers’ attentions away from
research that might have a policy impact but does not readily attract the interests
of high impact journals.

Researchers who wish to have a policy impact need to understand better the policy
drivers and context, including the policy cycle, processes for policy making and
Details available at: http://aphcri.anu.edu.au/research-program/apt
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
25
implementation issues. Submissions noted that the policy environment is complex
and even strong research evidence alone is not sufficient to ensure a good policy
outcome. Building productive and trusted relationships over the long term between
researchers and policy stakeholders is a key factor to support more relevant and
timely evidence.

Finally, there are some specific research skills that are in short supply across the
system. These include research capacity in mining information from routinely
collected data sets; linking data from various sources to build a more
comprehensive picture of population behavior and needs; and the development of
intervention research approaches and skills particularly to support the design of
interventions related to socio-economic determinants. The development of
evaluation capacity is also a high priority.

Improvement of approaches to peer review in preventive health is also a priority.
From the perspective of policy stakeholders’ capacities, key issues included:
 Policy stakeholders need to have a better understanding of research processes and
the value of types of research to support robust decision making. There is also a
need for clearer understanding of how research evidence can be taken on board
alongside other policy drivers.
 Policy stakeholders need to become more sophisticated in understanding what
research can offer as a basis for policy development and program design and its
limits, so that their expectations of what certainty research evidence can provide are
realistic.
 There needs to be a greater capacity for policy stakeholders to be able to articulate
their policy and evidence ‘needs’ and to engage researchers as part of that process.
 Recognising the complexity of social, economic and other issues that affect the
preventive health agenda, policy stakeholders need to acquire skills in operating
outside their policy silos and collaborate in identifying priorities and engaging
researchers in their needs and evince assessments at an early stage in the policy
process.
 Policy stakeholders need to establish relations with researchers built on trust and
mutual respect.
Intersectoral, multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional partnerships and engagement
can also be achieved by investing in professional development and training initiatives
that allow people to work with and across various sectors and organisations – such
experience facilitates an understanding of how the different organisations that
influence health and the health research, promotion and policy process function and
interact. Understanding this complex interplay is essential to effective translational
efforts. (Greater Green Triangle University Department of Rural Health)
In terms of those implementing strategies, a workforce development strategy that would
embed a strategic but locally responsive approach to workforce capability development
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
26
should be considered. Intrinsic to this is the culture of reflective practice and notion of
evolution of the of the Strategy components. It could include training:

for multiple audiences including researchers, users, and peer reviewers to build
research practice that is responsive to needs, relevant and incorporates multiple
domains

in collaborative and interdisciplinary research practice ( including research across
domains and users of research)

in approaches to designing and implementing translational research

for non-academic researchers in community, service and other settings who could
assist in the research process, such as the scheme established

to build future academic capacity through development and implementation of post
graduate level qualifications.
Early career traineeships and career fellowships in policy-relevant research should be
considered to help build capacity in preventive research. Some of the approaches that have
proved successful in improving clinical research career opportunities (such as part-time
fellowships that allow clinicians to maintain their clinical work alongside research activities)
would have application in the preventive health research area.
Building interest and participation in translational research is highly important to secure
more involvement. Edwards17 found that more interactive processes such as ‘round tables,
knowledge brokers, secondments, training and joint case studies were preferred by officials
to enhance engagement between governments and researchers. To improve research
capacity, master classes and round tables, knowledge brokers, secondments, training and
joint case studies were preferred. These interactive approaches are important also in the
development of relationships between researchers and decision makers as they share
information, debate topics and reflect on issues.
Suggestions to improve interaction and consequently relationships between researchers and
users as part of the work process include:
17

commissioned research which creates opportunities to collaborate with users in the
planning and implementation of research

master classes involving researchers and users

fostering networks and collaborations between evidence producers and users in
particular topic areas

supporting knowledge exchange activities such as work based seminars and
workshops

setting-based and practice-led evaluation

joint user and researcher teams on rapid reviews of evidence.
Edwards, op. cit.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
27
Many respondents suggested that ANPHA sponsor symposia and round tables on priority
issues. Much other activity should be opportunistic and supported by universities and the
state and territory governments as part of normal practice.
Culture to support the Strategy
Existing research and decision maker cultures are a product of historical practice and
systems built around silos with separate objectives, accountabilities and work. Current
culture affects the research approaches, funding and incentives and what is published. It
also affects beliefs about quality and expectations about impact.
Many submissions noted that researchers and users have differing drivers and incentives
and these can work strongly against building mutual respect and cooperation.
Translational research, which focuses on building ongoing professional relationships and
collaborative practice, requires a change in mindset and practice by all parties. It is likely
that securing momentum in this area will require a purposeful approach by state and
territory health (or government) departments and by research institutions.
The Strategy should pay attention to these factors through the incentive structures,
opportunities for combined learning, problem solving and debate. Preventive health
research is focused on understanding social change and places importance on changing
attitudes through changing behaviours, and creating new and positive narratives. Cultural
change can be supported through developing opportunities for shared interaction, changing
incentive structures and developing career opportunities.
Strong leadership will be needed for change in mindset and practice, with accompanying
changes to funding approaches and reward systems. It needs to be gradual, iterative and
long-term and is likely to pose many challenges. Respondents sought strategic
implementation of capability building strategies to support change.
Relationship of each stakeholder category to the
National Preventive Health Research Strategy
There are a large number of stakeholders involved in preventive health research that could
be involved in or influenced by this Strategy. Potential participants include those who have
made submissions and participated in consultations as well as sectors that could have major
influence such as the human services agencies that might participate and/or use research.
Government departments and funded agencies
Commonwealth, state and territory governments through the health system make large
investments in research infrastructure such as the NHMRC, ARC, data collection and analysis
agencies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare (AIHW) and investments in research centres in universities. Funding relevant
research to understand complex problems is a priority as is optimal utilisation of that
research as part of their own responsibilities under the NPAPH.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
28
Other agencies which have a strong influence on health though healthy public policy may
not immediately see the relevance of the Strategy for their needs but are engaged in similar
research and evaluation activity in their respective fields. For example, several longitudinal
studies (including The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey
and The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC)) important for preventive health
research are sponsored by agencies such as FaHCSIA. This agency has policy and funding
responsibilities in areas such as housing, welfare and Indigenous affairs that are key to many
of the social determinants of health.
Statistical, data and information services
The ABS and the AIHW and the National Health Performance Authority influence data
collection and development of the surveillance capacity that is a high priority in preventive
health. These agencies are currently involved in improving or reorienting work around data
collection and analysis and health system performance.
NHMRC and ARC
Under the national research priorities, both of these bodies have responsibilities to support
research that will build and maintain a ‘healthy Australia’. Their processes of allocating
research funding influence approaches to grant assessment and peer review. The NHMRC in
particular has a formal role in funding research in public health and in translational research.
The ARC supports much research in social, environmental, economic and public policy
sciences that is relevant to preventive health.
Universities and research centres
Representatives of universities and research centres potentially have a strong role in the
Strategy. They are funded by commonwealth, state and territory governments, and other
sources, to conduct research in priority areas. Collaborations such as the Council of Public
Health Institutions (CAPHIA) have a strong network of 24 universities and a tradition in
public health education and research that is directly pertinent to the Strategy. The CAPHIA
centres can contribute to research in the preventive health priority areas, support the
development of new methods and approaches to translational research and participate in
the development and conduct of education and training for researchers and users alike.
CAPHIA centres have broad coverage of ANPHA’s priority areas of alcohol, nutrition and
obesity and tobacco and many represent a focus on particular areas.
Centres like the Sax Institute in NSW and the Centre of Excellence in Intervention and
Prevention Science (CEIPS) in Victoria, are funded by state governments have a focus on
evidence reviews and areas of specific interest to the Strategy.
Professional associations, peak bodies, charities, statutory bodies and interest groups
These groups form connections between governments, service providers and consumers on
prevention issues. The advocacy role of organisations such as the cancer councils and Heart
Foundation means that they already have strong relationships with many sectors. Each
represents areas of priority need for the Strategy and has functions of importance to the
Strategy. These include research, stakeholder information, the need for suitable evidence
and a desire to foster change. Many of these organisations already support a number of
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
29
collaborations in research and evaluation and they could form supportive advisory,
implementation and dissemination functions for the strategy.
Other organisations, interest groups and individuals
The organisations listed such as Healthy Soils Australia, the Climate Alliance bring additional
perspectives to the Strategy.
Evaluation of the Strategy
Some stakeholders proposed that ANPHA commission an evaluation of the Strategy.
Because the Strategy development and implementation processes are iterative, the NPAPH
should consider employing developmental evaluation strategies that encourage ongoing
reflection of progress and problems. This might be guided by developing a Theory of
Change. The process should be ongoing and, like the Strategy, should recognise that the
changes being proposed can be realised only in the long term and the evaluation should be
focused on progress towards those ends. The approach to the evaluation should be
designed early in the implementation of the Strategy so that data collection needs can be
considered.
Role of ANPHA
There were a number of views on ANPHA’s role and the following were the most common.

ANPHA should play a leadership and catalytic role in supporting the development of
preventive health research field including:
o
Building capacity in preventive translational research by researchers and
decision makers.
o
Being a catalyst for assessing and developing new or expanded research
approaches to answer questions from a user perspective.
o
Acting as an advocate for existing research agencies to take a preventive
research focus.
o
Brokering for changed funding approaches.
o
Providing leadership in a number of fields by stimulating thinking about
policy relevant research.

ANPHA should be an information broker, becoming a central source for information
and advice for decision makers. While there are many bodies engaged in research in
preventive health the needs for information and advice for decision makers remains
high and the traditional gaps between what is produced and what is needed exist.
There is currently no one body seen as a source of information and advice or a link
to that advice.

ANPHA has a role in the development of community health literacy and in
supporting public relations strategies to ensure that important research findings are
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
30
publicised and debated. Respondents believe that policy and system change will
follow public awareness of need.
The role of ANPHA was endorsed as being a catalyst and mobiliser of action but respondents
wanted clearer definitions of what that means. Many thought that ANPHA had or should
develop a highly influential role and had the funds to support far-reaching changes.
Many submissions conveyed the view that ANPHA had a role to assist funders, decision
makers and researchers to clarify what is needed and stimulate action on systems, funding,
capability building, culture change and promotion of demand. This is clearly beyond the
capacity of ANPHA alone and all participants have a role in these functions. The role and
contribution of the state and territory partners (NPAPH) should also be clarified.
Issues for the Preventive Health Research Strategy
Respondents (including some NPAPH partners), argued that a national strategy was of
paramount importance if Australia is to achieve improvements in obesity and other areas.
There was no submission that argued against a national approach. Clearly the thinking is
consistent with the priorities espoused in the 2012 National Research Investment Plan that
acknowledges the importance of research into health and well-being. Despite this strong
support for the evolution of the 2011 interim Strategy, there are several challenges and
issues to be considered in its development.
Effective health promotion practice depends on the availability and use of robust and
relevant information from research and evaluation, statistical sources and expert
knowledge. Currently much information that is needed is not available, not relevant or not
used for a range of reasons.
One of the key purposes of a national strategy would be to create an ongoing narrative that
serves to engage the interest of researchers, users—especially across government and
NGOs—and the public in participating in preventive health research, design and evaluation
of initiatives and debate. This interest should be created through the initiatives led by the
Strategy, the findings of research and evaluation itself and publicising these initiatives.
While the focus of the Strategy would be necessarily on major change over the long term,
investment in current capacity and initiatives could provide early outputs, such as evidence
reviews. There is much work happening nationally, some of it clearly would be part of this
Strategy, which can also serve to promote interest in prevention. The key challenge for the
Strategy is to harness and capitalise on fragmented effort and, because of resource
constraints, to be selective in its approach The development of a plan with clear goals and
strategies will be one mechanism to focus national effort. It would also provide clarity to
stakeholders on their potential roles and responsibilities and unique contributions of various
sectors, including governments, research, NGOs, industry and the community.
To enable change the Strategy will also need to incorporate approaches to enhance the
research system or preventive health research i.e. the policies, funding system and
infrastructure that underpins the capacity to undertake effective translational and applied
research. Important improvements include availability of funding for research that is
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
31
transactional, cannot necessarily be contained in a set timeframe and which may involve
non-academic participants in the research team. The funding criteria need to be amended to
better support preventive health research.
Translational research approaches are still evolving. Researchers, evaluators and users at all
levels need more exposure to the concepts and methods of effective collaborative
enterprise. Development of evaluation capacity as part of the evidence production spectrum
is also seen as important. It is suggested that a workforce Strategy be developed as part of
the National Strategy as a systematic approach to building capacity. A major theme of many
submissions and comments was that, while Australia has great strengths in preventive
health research and delivery of effective programs (e.g. tobacco control), the fragmentation
of research and policy efforts limits what might be achieved and does not encourage
translational research practice. The Strategy could also encourage a more coherent
approach to achieving capacity building and collaboration.
The initiatives for capacity building could harness existing effort across sectors to create the
conditions and the capacity by which preventive health research can flourish. It will provide
opportunities to engage relevant parties in collaborative experiences through research –
policy/implementation conversations, education and debate, symposia, round tables and
other avenues. All these processes will foster the development of relationships that are
essential for effective translational research.
Differentiating the Strategy from other research strategies such as public health and primary
care research is a challenge. If the term ‘preventive health’ is used it should be defined, as it
is not self explanatory and may act as a deterrent to multidisciplinary research effort and
multisectoral policy and decision maker effort.
Expansion of the role of ANPHA within the research Strategy might need support from the
NPAPH. The submissions suggest a role that is facilitative of coordinated national effort and
a catalyst for innovation and improvement. Governance structures and protocols to support
collaborative effort may also need to be set up, or at least need clarification so that key
initiatives could be undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholders. A key component of
ANPHA’s role would be evaluating progress over time and advising on the Strategy’s
continuing development. ANPHA’s accountability would be within that framework and it
would not be directly accountable for activities that are within the domains of other players.
Stakeholders urge that ANPHA should consider strategies to support the prevention
research field and also how to mobilise other parties and stakeholders (NPAPH, universities,
NHMRC, ARC), and a broad range of sectors to participate in a more purposeful way in this
effort.
As part of developing the Strategy, ANPHA the NPAPH and other stakeholders should
consider and agree their priorities relating to the spectrum of needs enunciated and the
possibility of collaborative investment in research. The Strategy is an opportunity to provide
a clear and strategic focus for all partners and pathways to long-term outcomes. Progress
measures, including key outputs, should also be clearly identified. An evaluation framework
would guide and support reflection the on Strategy progress so it can be refined over time to
meet changing needs.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
32
The Strategy should recognise that improving the health of Australians is a continuing
process and does not have a defined end point. Measuring outcomes from the Strategy
should recognise this and incorporate a mix of both medium and longer-term goals. Major
outcomes in such areas as reducing obesity will not be achieved within one or two four-year
budget cycles.
Conclusion
The outcomes of consultations clearly demonstrate support for a national preventive health
research Strategy to support measures to improve healthy outcomes for Australians.
The Strategy would need to address issues such as research priorities, research approaches,
and funding and infrastructure for research. It should also focus on creating supportive
research and policy cultures to enhance effectiveness of policies and programs through
uptake of evidence in implementation. The views of stakeholders and other research
evidence around preventive health research should inform the development of the Strategy.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
33
Appendix A—A systems approach to change
The McKinsey 7S framework was developed in the early 1980s by consultants working at the
McKinsey & Company consulting firm. The basic premise of the framework is that there are
seven internal aspects of an organisation that need to be aligned if it is to be successful.
MacDonald Wells has modified the framework to apply it to the ANPHA National Preventive
Health Research Strategy.
Framing the thinking: a systems approach to change
Na onal Preven ve Health Research Strategy
Strategy
Goals
Audiences
Role/Focus
Scope
Systems
Capability
Policies , funding mechanisms
informa on sharing, coali ons,
data
Skills, a tudes, mentoring
and support systems,
communi es of prac ce
Culture
Changes to beliefs and
pa erns of prac ce
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
34
Appendix B—Submission authors
Alzheimer's Australia
Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
Australian Health Promotion Association (Western Australia branch)
Australian Physiotherapy Association
Australian Women’s Health Network
Bupa
Cancer Council Victoria
Cancer Institute New South Wales
Catholic Health Australia
Central Queensland University
Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National UniversityNU
Climate and Health Alliance
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Consumers Health Forum of Australia
Dairy Australia
Deakin University’s Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research
Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania
Dietitians Association of Australia
Dr. Alden, Health Broker
Dr. Taylor, James Cook University
Dr. Oliver Frank, Discipline of General Practice, The University of Adelaide
DrinkWise Australia
DrinkWise Australia
Environmental Health Australia
Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health Andrology Australia_ Research Group
Greater Green Triangle Department of Rural Health Deakin and Flinders Universities
Healthy Ageing
Healthy Soils Australia
Heart Foundation Submission
James Cook University Deakin University and The University of Sydney
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
35
Mental Health Council of Australia
Menzies School of Health Research
National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre
National Committee for Medicine (NCM), Australian Academy of Science
National Drug Research Institute
New South Wales Ministry of Health
New South Wales Office of Preventive Health
Pfizer
Prevention Partnership Australia
Prevention Research Collaboration University of Sydney
Public Health Association of Australia
Public Health Evidence and Knowledge Translation Research Group
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University
Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia
SIDS and Kids Australia
Sydney Playground Project Team, The University of Sydney
The Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australia
VicHealth
Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation
Victorian Alcohol & Drug Association
Western Australia Department of Health
Weight Management Council Australia Ltd
Women's Health Victoria
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
36
Appendix C—Stakeholders and their potential
involvement in the Preventive Health Research
Strategy
Stakeholder categories
Government agencies
Statistical, data and
information services
Organisational focus informing potential contribution to
the Preventive Health Research Strategy
Departments of Health, Commonwealth, NSW, Tas, Vic,
NT, WA,
Policies and programs in public health programs
Knowledge purveyor
Leaders in preventive health policy, research and
evaluation across all domains of health.
Governments preventive health interests include
protecting and promoting health, preventing ill health
and injury, reducing health inequity, managing risk and
supporting safe and healthy environments.
Funder of research to build workforce capacity and to
support priority health policies and programs.
Participant in translational research creation and use
The NSW Office of Preventive Health – coordination of
services to reduce lifestyle risk factors leading to chronic
disease.
The Chronic Disease Directorate, WA Department of
Health
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Services
Australian Government's principal source of advice on
social policy. FaHCSIA works in partnership with other
government and non-government organisations in the
management of a diverse range of programs and services
designed to support and improve the lives of Australians.
Policies and programs to knowledge purveyor.
Research funder.
Researcher and user of research
Leaders in Indigenous preventive health and social
wellbeing policy and research.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Knowledge purveyor, working to make research more
useful in health and social policy domains
Research translation approaches necessary for relevance
in publications.
Contribution to data policy.
Academic public health
peak national
organisation
Universities/research
centres
National Health Performance Authority
Established under the Health Reform Act 2011 to provide
locally relevant and nationally consistent information on
the performance of health care organisations and health
systems, based on 50 indicators agreed by COAG.
The Council of Academic Public Health Institutions
Heads of Schools and Discipline Leaders of public health
education and research across Australia
Research and education in disease prevention and health
promotion.
Collaborative research and translational research –
national to local focus.
Capacity building of researchers.
National reach and sphere of influence.
Sax Institute
Knowledge purveyor especially promoting the use of
evidence through evidence reviews.
Leader in preventive health translation research and
evaluation.
Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute
Research for policy and system development in primary
care.
Research broker to bring policy makers and researchers
together.
Contribution to system policy.
Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing,
ANU
Research in assessment and better care for people with
dementia
Early detection and prevention issues affecting
consumers and carers.
Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, (CPAN), Deakin University
Multidisciplinary research centre understanding the
behavioural, social and environmental influences on
nutrition and physical activity; epidemiology of
overweight and obesity; and development and evaluation
of obesity prevention strategies for children and adults.
Research in nutrition in physical activity and sedentary
behaviours and obesity
Contribution to methods development and policy.
Central Queensland University
Large student footprint across Australia.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
38
Organisation. Research into preventive health and
health and productive ageing including one of four major
themes on obesity and metabolic health.
Greater Green Triangle University Department of Rural
Health, Flinders and Deakin Universities – Primary
Health Care Research Evaluation and Development,
Mental Health and Rural Health research programs.
James Cook University, Deakin University, University of
Sydney,
A consortium with a particular interest in injury and injury
prevention.
Menzies School of Health Research
Independent Medical and research institute
Research into Indigenous health
Health, education and research training.
National Drug Research Institute
Conducts and disseminates high quality research that
contributes to the primary prevention of harmful drug
use and the reduction of drug related harm in Australia.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre and the
National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction
are the other two collaborating drug research centres.
Prevention Research Collaboration, University of Sydney
Expertise in public health nutrition, physical activity,
obesity prevention, epidemiology and health promotion
research as well as other aspects of primary prevention.
School of Public Health and Prevention Medicine,
Monash University.
Focus on health promotion and prevention of disease,
disability and chronic disease.
Additional research
centres of relevance to
the Strategy that have
not provided views.
NSW Physical Activity, Nutrition and Obesity Research
Group (PANORG) incorporating the former Centre for
Overweight and Obesity.
Improving research capability in overweight and obesity
and contribute to the overall program of action.
Social Policy Research Centre (University of New South
Wales)- a specialist research centre of the Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences conducting research on all aspects of
social policy, disseminates research findings, promotes
research training and contributes to policy development
and evaluation.
Social Policy Evaluation, Analysis and Research (SPEAR)
Centre, Australian National University. A joint initiative
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
39
of FaHCSIA and the Economics Group in the Research
School of Social Sciences at the ANU. Has a focus on
economic and social policy analysis
Centre for Research and Action in Public Health
(CeRAPH) University of Canberra.
Undertakes research in partnership with a wide range of
academic, government , non-profit and other partners to
find solutions to real- world health problems. Core focus
is healthy and sustainable communities and rural and
remote mental health.
Public Health Evidence and Knowledge Translation
Research Group
Sydney Playground Project Team – A multidisciplinary
research team comprising Sydney University, Macquarie,
Australia, Catholic University, UNSW, Canberra and the
University of Adelaide. The team is committed to
promoting the physical and mental health of children.
Statutory body
Professional
associations/peak
bodies/charities/interest
groups
National Committee for Medicine – Australian Academy
of Science. Reports on public issues such as national
research policy setting, including food quality, and
climate change.
Cancer Institute NSW – a range of functions to lessen
the impact of cancer
Knowledge purveyor.
Translational research.
Data producer and user.
Education.
Policy advocate.
Alzheimer’s Australia – Peak body advocating for
research in dementia prevention, early detection and
care, services to people with dementia and their carers.
Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance (ACDPA).
Alliance of 5 NGO’s working on primary prevention of
chronic disease with a particular emphasis on shared risk
factors of poor nutrition, physical activity, overweight
and obesity.
Australian Heart Foundation – Charitable organisation
improves health by funding cardiovascular research,
guidelines for health professionals, informing the public
and assisting people with cardiovascular disease.
Australian Physiotherapy Association – research relevant
to obesity and mobility and prevention of
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
40
musculoskeletal diseases
Australian Women’s Health Network – (AWHN) – Peak
organisation for women’s health in Australia. Volunteer
based NFP network to provide a voice for women’s health
through advocacy and information sharing.
Consumer Health Forum of Australia – Peak body
representing the interests of healthcare consumers,
working to achieve safe, quality, and timely health care
for all Australians, supported by accessible health
information and systems.
Cancer Council Victoria - non-profit charitable
organisation involved in cancer research, patient support,
cancer prevention and advocacy. Focuses on research,
prevention and advocacy programs which deliver better
outcomes for people affected by cancer.
Dairy Australia – participates actively in health
promotion and associated food policy and regulation
initiatives. Funds research into health benefits of dairy
foods.
Dietitians Association Australia – The Dietitians
Association of Australia (DAA) is the national association
of the dietetic profession with over 5000 members and
branches in each state and territory. DAA is a leader in
nutrition and advocates for better food, better health,
and wellbeing for all.
Environmental Health Australia – environmental health
standards and professional interests of Environmental
Health Practitioners
Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men’s Health,
(FFCMH) Andrology Australia Research Group. Takes a
comprehensive approach to men’s health addressing
both physical and psychological concerns across the
lifespan. Through innovation and research the centre
aims to understand and cure disease to enable men to
live longer healthier lives.
Mental Health Council Australia - (MHCA) The peak,
national non-government organisation representing and
promoting the interests of the Australian mental health
sector. The membership of the MHCA includes national
organisations of mental health services, consumers,
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
41
carers, special needs groups, clinical service providers,
community and private mental health service providers,
national research institutions and state/territory peak
bodies.
Public Health Association of Australia – PHAA is a
national organisation comprising around 2000 individual
members and representing over 40 professional groups
concerned with the promotion of health at a population
level. It works to promote the health and well- being of
all Australians. Supports better population health
outcomes based on prevention, the social determinants
of health and equity principles.
Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia – Clinical
services, Education, professional training and research.
SIDS and Kids – national community base organisation
dedicated to saving the lives of babies, children during
pregnancy, childbirth, infancy and childhood and to
supporting bereaved parents.
Victorian Drug and Alcohol Forum of Australia – peak
body for alcohol and other drug (AOD) services in Victoria,
providing advocacy, leadership, information and
representation of AOD both within and beyond the AOD
sector.
Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health
Organisation – represents Aboriginal Health Service
throughout Victoria, develop policies which promote
Aboriginal health rights, community control and physical,
spiritual and emotional wellbeing.
Weight Management Council of Australia – administers
the weight management code of practice and guides the
accreditation and ongoing oversight of weight
management practitioners.
Women’s Health Victoria
Not-for-profit organisation focused on improving the lives
of Victorian Women. Undertakes health promotion and
advocacy to improve women’s health and provide a
number of direct services.
All professional associations have a membership base and
have research dissemination and use, policy advocacy
and membership services.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
42
Other organisations and
interest groups.
Many undertake or participate in, use and disseminate
research.
They have strong interest in improving Australia’s health
and wellbeing through evidence informed interventions.
They are potential advisors and collaborators in
translational research and dissemination of information
and advice to researchers and policy makers in their
respective fields.
Healthy Soils Australia – not for profit volunteer
organisation concerned with the connection with healthy
soil and human health.
Climate and Health Alliance – not for profit organisation
and a national alliance of organisations and people in the
health sector working to raise awareness of the health
risks of climate change and the health benefits of
emission reductions.
Prevention Partnership – a social enterprise focusing on
the prevention of chronic disease and injuries. PPA
exercise the principles of collective impact to bring
together business, community and government
organisations to accelerate positive outcomes on social
issues that are impacting on our heath and wellbeing.
Drinkwise Australia – not for profit company funded by
the alcohol industry, established to effect a generational
change in the way Australian’s drink by challenging social
norms and the patterns of drinking that lead to alcohol
related harms, and developing new positive norms that
encourage the adoption of a healthier and safer drinking
culture.
Private Health Service
Provider
Industry
Pets and Aged Care Steering Group – the health benefits
of pets in aged care settings.
Research users and research purveyors.
Catholic Health Australia
Large non-government provider of health community and
aged care services in Australia. Represents Catholic
health care sponsors, systems, facilities and related
organisations and services.
Research user.
Potential research participant or partner.
Bupa – Health Insurance Industry
Bupa’s purpose to help people live longer, healthier and
happier lives. Bupa operates several businesses in
Australia, including Bupa Health Dialog (evidence based
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
43
wellness, prevention and chronic disease management
services).
Research funder and user.
Individuals
Pfizer – Pharmaceutical Industry, Researcher –
Pharmacology
Research funder, improve health and wellbeing at every
stage in life.
Research user.
Healthy Ageing – Professors Collette Browning, Monash
University and Hal Kendig, University of Sydney.
Researching the roles and outcomes for communities of
place in primary prevention – Dr Judy Taylor.
Pets and Aged Care Steering Group – Jan Phillips, Chair.
Health Broker – Dr Jennifer Alden
General Practitioner - Dr Oliver Frank
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
44
Abbreviations
ABS
Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACDPA
Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance
AIHW
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ANPHA
Australian National Preventive Health Agency
ARC
Australian Research Council
AWHN
Australian Women’s Health Network
CALD
Culturally and linguistically diverse
CAPHIA
Council of Academic Public Health Institutions Australia
CCV
Cancer Council Victoria
CEIPS
The Centre of Excellence in Intervention and Prevention Science
CeRAPH
Centre for Research and Action in Public Health
C-PAN
Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research
CSIRO
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DAA
Dietitians Association of Australia
DHSS
Department of Health and Human Services (Tasmania)
DoHA:
Department of Health and Ageing (Australian Government)
ECR
Expert Committee on Research (ANPHA)
ERA
Excellence in Research Australia
FAHCSIA
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs (Australian Government)
FFCMH
Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men’s Health
MHCA
Mental Health Council of Australia
NHMRC
National Health and Medical Research Council
NHPA
National Health Performance Authority
NPAPH
National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health
PANORG
Physical Activity, Nutrition and Obesity Research Group
PHAA:
Public Health Association of Australia
PPA
Prevention Partnership Australia
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
45
SLA
Statistical local area
SPEAR
Social Policy Evaluation, Analysis and Research Centre
VACCHO
Victorian Community Controlled Health Organisation
VicHealth
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
PREVENTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH STRATEGY: ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
46