Reflecting on knowledge translation strategies from global health research projects in Tunisia and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire

Experiences Shared by the (Future) Public Health Workforce during the COVD-19 Pandemic in Germany: Results of a Survey on Workload, Work Content, and Related Challenges among Students and Young Professionals

Although previous studies have focused on the adverse effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on various professional groups (particularly in the health and nursing care sector), this study aims to close a research gap by assessing perspectives of students and young professionals in epidemiology and public health in Germany in terms of shifts in workload, work content, and related challenges caused by the pandemic. We conducted a cross-sectional survey between mid-February and mid-March 2022. Quantitative data were analyzed via standardized mean differences. Qualitative data based on answers to open-ended questions were analyzed via a qualitative content analysis. Overall, 172 individuals participated in this survey. Results indicate that students felt burdened the most by lack of exchange with other students and lecturers. Study participants employed in public health experienced changes in their employment because they had changes in their work content- and administration, which was accompanied by a high burden due to the workload. Multiple demands that can have an impact on both acquired skills and mental health during the professional qualification phase were mentioned by the participants. Therefore, more in-depth analyses are needed to investigate the impact the pandemic will have on the (future) public health workforce in the long run.

Advocacy, activism, and lobbying: How variations in interpretation affects ability for academia to engage with public policy

Research and teaching are considered core-responsibilities for academic researchers. "Practice" activities however are viewed as ancillary, despite university emphasis on their importance. As funders, governments, and academia address the role of research in social impact, the deliberations on researcher activism, advocacy and lobbying have seen a resurgence. This study explores the perceptions of 52 faculty and 24 government decisionmakers on the roles, responsibilities, and restrictions of an academic to proactively engage in efforts that can be interpreted under these three terms. Data was coded through inductive thematic analysis using Atlas.Ti and a framework approach. We found that discordant perceptions about how much activism, advocacy and lobbying faculty should be engaging in, results from how each term is defined, interpreted, supported and reported by the individuals, the School of Public Health (SPH), and government agencies. Influential faculty factors included: seniority, previous experiences, position within the institution, and being embedded in a research center with an advocacy focus. Faculty views on support for advocacy were often divergent. We surmise therefore, that for effective and mutually beneficial collaboration to occur, academic institutions need to align rhetoric with reality with respect to encouraging modes and support for government engagement. Similarly, government agencies need to provide more flexible modes of engagement. This will contribute to alleviating confusion as well as tension leading to more effective engagement and consequently opportunity for evidence-informed decision making in public health globally.

Integrated knowledge translation to advance noncommunicable disease policy and practice in South Africa: application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework

Background

In response to the “know–do” gap, several initiatives have been implemented to enhance evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). These include individual training, organizational culture change management, and legislative changes. The importance of relationships and stakeholder engagement in EIDM has led to an evolution of models and approaches including integrated knowledge translation (IKT). IKT has emerged as a key strategy for ensuring that engagement is equitable, demand-driven, and responsive. As a result, the African-German Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) incorporated an IKT approach to influence noncommunicable diseases (NCD) policy and practice. We documented the phased process of developing, implementing, and monitoring the IKT approach in South Africa; and explored the appropriateness of using the exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment (EPIS) framework for this purpose.

Methods

We mapped the South Africa IKT approach onto the EPIS framework using a framework analysis approach. Notes of team meetings, stakeholder matrices, and engagement strategies were analysed and purposefully plotted against the four phases of the framework in order to populate the different constructs. We discussed and finalized the analysis in a series of online iterations until consensus was reached.

Results

The mapping exercise revealed an IKT approach that was much more iterative, dynamic, and engaging than initially thought. Several constructs (phase-agnostic) remained important and stable across EPIS phases: stable and supportive funding; committed and competent leadership; skilled and dedicated IKT champions; diverse and established personal networks; a conducive and enabling policy environment; and boundary-spanning intermediaries. Constructs such as “innovations” constantly evolved and adapted to the changing inner and outer contexts (phase-specific).

Conclusions

Using the EPIS framework to interrogate, reflect on, and document our IKT experiences proved extremely relevant and useful. Phase-agnostic constructs proved critical to ensure resilience and agility of NCD deliberations and policies in the face of highly dynamic and changing local contexts, particularly in view of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Bridging IKT with a framework from implementation science helps to reflect on this process and can guide the development and planning of similar interventions and strategies.

Re-thinking global and public health projects during the COVID-19 pandemic context: Considerations and recommendations for early- and not-so-early-career researchers

This commentary aims to provide a glimpse into some of the early and continuing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on our global and public health projects: research in low-resourced settings; research with vulnerable populations, such as asylum seekers, Indigenous communities, children, and mental health service users; and research with healthcare professionals, frontline workers, and health planners. In the early context of restrictions caused by COVID-19, this commentary highlights our research setbacks and challenges, and the ways in which we are adapting research methodologies, while considering ethical implications related to the pandemic and their impacts on conducting global and public health research. As we learn to become increasingly aware of some of our limitations in the face of the pandemic, some positives are also worth highlighting: we are mobilizing our training and research skills to participate in COVID-19 projects and to disseminate knowledge on COVID-19, including through papers such as this one. However, we do acknowledge that these opportunities have not been equitable. Each thematic section of this commentary concludes with key recommendations related to research in the early and continuing context of the COVID-19 pandemic that we believe to be applicable to early- and not-so-early-career researchers working in the global and public health fields.