Abstract
Background: Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.
Aims and objectives: We critically assess the ‘Functional Dialogue’ (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.
Methods: Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
Findings: FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence–policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.
Discussion and conclusion: We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project’s broader success.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Evidence and Policy |
| Early online date | 11 Nov 2024 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 11 Nov 2024 |
Data Availability Statement
Data for this project cannot be shared publicly due to ethical requirements. The structured functional dialogue guide is available at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/6/e049356, and the coding framework is available at http://www.uwa.edu.au/projects/vaxpol-lab/coronavax-project.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Coronavax investigators who contributed their preliminary findings over the course of the Functional Dialogue process: Ghoufran Al-Assadi, Gracie Edwards, Basil Khan, Sean McDonell, Lara McKenzie, Barbara Nattabi, Sophie Newstead, Leah Roberts, Sandra Salter, Liza Seubert, Jake Turvey, Taaiba Walliar, Lisa Wood, Marco Rizzi, Eliza Keays. We also thank Paul Effler and Valerie Swift. We acknowledge additional contributions made by Leah Roberts and our research coordinator and project manager Sian Tomkinson, to the set up and delivery of Functional Dialogues with our stakeholders. We thank Catherine Hughes, our community representative, for her wide-reaching support with the project, and Lorena Herrero and Alessia Dipalma for their assistance with manuscript preparation. Finally, we thank our government partners for engaging with us and providing us with unique insight into the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.
Access to Document
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
View full fingerprint
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
Attwell, K., Carlson, S., Harper, T., Tchilingirian, J., Westphal, D., & Blyth, C. C. (2024). Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap. Evidence and Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038
Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap. / Attwell, Katie; Carlson, Samantha; Harper, Tauel et al.
In: Evidence and Policy, 11.11.2024.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Attwell, K, Carlson, S, Harper, T, Tchilingirian, J, Westphal, D & Blyth, CC 2024, 'Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap', Evidence and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038
Attwell K, Carlson S, Harper T, Tchilingirian J, Westphal D, Blyth CC. Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap. Evidence and Policy. 2024 Nov 11. Epub 2024 Nov 11. doi: 10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038
Attwell, Katie ; Carlson, Samantha ; Harper, Tauel et al. / Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout : An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap. In: Evidence and Policy. 2024.
@article{f8e91bf97db54048b114aa14adb94031,
title = "Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout: An examination of {\textquoteleft}Functional Dialogues{\textquoteright} as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap",
abstract = "Background: Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.Aims and objectives: We critically assess the {\textquoteleft}Functional Dialogue{\textquoteright} (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.Methods: Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees{\textquoteright} attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Findings: FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence–policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.Discussion and conclusion: We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project{\textquoteright}s broader success.",
author = "Katie Attwell and Samantha Carlson and Tauel Harper and Jordan Tchilingirian and Darren Westphal and Blyth, {Christopher C.}",
year = "2024",
month = nov,
day = "11",
doi = "10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038",
language = "English",
journal = "Evidence and Policy",
issn = "1744-2648",
publisher = "Policy Press",
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Facilitating Knowledge Transfer during Australia's COVID-19 vaccine rollout
T2 - An examination of ‘Functional Dialogues’ as an approach to bridge the evidence-policy gap
AU - Attwell, Katie
AU - Carlson, Samantha
AU - Harper, Tauel
AU - Tchilingirian, Jordan
AU - Westphal, Darren
AU - Blyth, Christopher C.
PY - 2024/11/11
Y1 - 2024/11/11
N2 - Background: Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.Aims and objectives: We critically assess the ‘Functional Dialogue’ (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.Methods: Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Findings: FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence–policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.Discussion and conclusion: We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project’s broader success.
AB - Background: Our interdisciplinary team initiated a project to inform the COVID-19 vaccination programme. We developed a novel research co-creation approach to share emerging findings with government.Aims and objectives: We critically assess the ‘Functional Dialogue’ (FD) programme for future research translation practices in time-limited policy-making scenarios. We identify what factors helped us to put the FDs together and consider their effects on all aspects of the research programme. We draw out key moments of impact, weaknesses and challenges and identify how future FDs might be enhanced.Methods: Between January 2021 and June 2022, we conducted 14 FDs with state and federal government, exploring attendees’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences, roles and observations regarding our research. FDs and research team debriefs were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Findings: FD processes proved invaluable to the timeliness, impact and flow of our research project by creating systems that helped to bridge the evidence–policy gap. Relationships and reciprocity helped, but other professional commitments of our government partners posed challenges and produced fluctuating engagement. FDs built the capacity of the research team, strengthening communication skills and creating opportunities to contribute to pandemic policies.Discussion and conclusion: We struggled to quantify the impact of FDs on policy decisions due to the ethical requirements of academic research, barriers for policy makers in isolating and/or acknowledging impact, and the collaborative nature of dialogue. Nevertheless, the structures of knowledge transfer that we foresaw as necessary to ensure impact became the central plank of the project’s broader success.
U2 - 10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038
DO - 10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000038
M3 - Article
SN - 1744-2648
JO - Evidence and Policy
JF - Evidence and Policy
ER -
