What makes a 'successful' collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

Vulture poisoning in Sub-Saharan Africa and its implications for conservation planning: A systematic review

The Old World Vultures (OWV), constituting 16 species primarily in Africa, Europe and Asia, are currently being driven to extinction mostly by anthropogenic activities, especially poisoning. The vulture losses from poisoning caused by human-related activities are en masse at a single mortality event-level and occur in complex social-ecological systems. There has been a growing body of knowledge on wildlife poisoning over the years. However, no review has been done to consolidate vulture poisoning studies in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with a social lens of conservation planning. Here we present a review of the vulture poisoning research by re-contextualizing the problem of vulture poisoning across SSA. We employed stepwise Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method to search for literature on vulture poisoning. The search yielded 211 studies which were trimmed to 55 after applying sets of eligibility criteria. Literature shows that efforts aimed at successful vulture conservation planning will require an understanding of the relational aspects of stakeholder social capital (assets) that are critical to the implementation of species recovery strategies. Strengthening relational social capital through multi-scale stakeholder evidence-based awareness creation and participation is necessary for addressing the African Vulture Crisis (AVC). Applying stakeholder social capital approaches to different vulture conservation scenarios at local, regional and international scales can enhance successful implementation of conservation strategies for the persistence of vultures in complex socio-ecological systems in African landscapes. Existing literature also showed the importance of stakeholder social capital as a countermeasure against vulture losses.

H.O.P.E. grows: An academic-public health partnership to reimagine public health services and increase mental health access among socially vulnerable populations

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the process of developing and sustaining an academic-public health partnership for behavioral health integration through an expansion of the Aligning Systems for Health (ASfH) framework.

STUDY SETTING

Practice-informed primary data (2017-2023) from the Holistic Opportunity Program for Everyone (HOPE) Initiative based in Charlotte, NC.

STUDY DESIGN

The unit of analysis in this descriptive case study is inter-organizational, specifically focusing on an academic-public health relationship. We illustrate the partnership process across the ASfH four core areas, including key challenges and insights.

DATA COLLECTION

Utilized a Critical Moments Reflection methodology and review of HOPE program data.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

(1) Formal partnership structures and processes are essential to monitoring the four ASfH core components for on-going system alignment. (2) Aligning systems for health principally involves two ecologies: (i) the health program and (ii) the partnership. The vitality and sustainability of both ecologies require continuous attention and resource investment. (3) Relationships rest at the heart of aligning systems. (4) With comparative advantages in research methods, the academic sector is especially poised to collaborate with healthcare systems and human service organizations to study, develop, implement, and scale evidence-based health interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The academic sector shares overlapping purposes with the public health, healthcare, and social services sectors while providing complementary value. It is a critical sectoral partner in advancing population health and health equity.

Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

The use of research evidence to underpin public health practice and policy decisions in local government is strongly promoted but its implementation has not been straightforward. This study aimed to explore the factors, relationships and processes that contribute towards accessing, using, and generating research evidence that is relevant to local authority public health and social care and shapes its practice.

METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews with elected councillors, officers directly involved with public health and social care and with community members from one urban unitary authority in South England were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. Local knowledge and evidence are prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued. The Director of Public Health was the principal source of information and support. Academics were rarely mentioned as information sources, and their involvement was ad hoc. The use of research evidence varied between individuals and departments, with wider engagement among public health specialists. Key barriers to the use of research evidence included access (not reported among public health professionals), research timeliness, local applicability, competence in finding and interpreting evidence and the role of research evidence within a political context. Public health and adult social care teams are not currently research active or research ready. Major barriers exist due to financial constraints and the socio-political context of local authorities. COVID-19 disrupted siloed ways of working, strengthening and opening potential collaborations within the local authority. This changed perspectives about the value of research but is likely time-limited unless underpinned by sustainable funding.

CONCLUSION

Creating strategic level roles within local government to work with the Director of Public Health to champion the research agenda and embedding researchers within and across teams would build capacity for local authorities to sustainably co-create, undertake, and use evidence to better inform future actions.