Search

Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing expectation that research be communicated broadly to share knowledge across industry, professional, governmental, and public spheres. Scholarly publishers can benefit from the sharing of research beyond academia since the potential for societal impact encourages further support from both industry and governmental funders. This paper draws on qualitative in‐depth interview data from Australian‐ and Japanese‐based early career researchers (ECRs) to investigate how higher education institutions support the development of diverse communication skills needed by ECRs to effectively share their research both in academia and beyond. We found that sharing research for academic and other diverse audiences is often perceived as valued but may not always be supported. Output valuing was communicated in performance management, but there were compelling differences between the two nations, with Japanese‐based ECRs reporting a stronger expectation of research outputs for non‐academic audiences than their Australian counterparts. There were also indications that institutional support for both academic and translational outputs may change in response to nations' shifting research priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the increasing use and costs associated with external management consultancy for healthcare improvement, there is a paucity of formal evaluations examining impact. This paper aims to: (i) discuss the potential benefits and disadvantages of external consultancies in addressing complex healthcare challenges and delivering healthcare improvement in Australia; and (ii) explore potential alternative models, including internal consultancy and hybrid models delivered through platforms of collaborative expertise. We propose that the substantive reliance on high cost external management consultancies without demonstrating value or benefit, is unsustainable. An integrative approach that embeds research and capacity building within healthcare services may be of value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health literacy interventions and research outcomes are not routinely or systematically implemented within healthcare systems. Co‐creation with stakeholders is a potential vehicle through which to accelerate and scale up the implementation of innovation from research. Methods: This narrative case study describes an example of the application of a co‐creation approach to improve health literacy in an Australian public health system that provides hospital and community health services to one million people from socioeconomically and culturally diverse backgrounds. We provide a detailed overview of the value co‐creation stages and strategies used to build a practical and sustainable working relationship between a University‐based academic research group and the local health district focussed on improving health literacy. Results: Insights from our experience over a 5‐year period informed the development of a revised model of co‐creation. The model incorporates a practical focus on the structural enablers of co‐creation, including the development of a Community of Practice, co‐created strategic direction and shared management systems. The model also includes a spectrum of partnership modalities (spanning relationship‐building, partnering and co‐creating), acknowledging the evolving nature of research partnerships and reinforcing the flexibility and commitment required to achieve meaningful co‐creation in research. Four key facilitators of health literacy co‐creation are identified: (i) local champions, (ii) co‐generated resources, (iii) evolving capability and understanding and (iv) increasing trust and partnership synergy. Conclusion: Our case study and co‐creation model provide insights into mechanisms to create effective and collaborative ways of working in health literacy which may be transferable to other health fields in Australia and beyond. Patient and Public Contribution: Our co‐creation approach brought together a community of practice of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers as equal partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]