Within One Health, research translation is a dynamic process involving collaboration and communication between the human, animal, and environmental health sectors to create and apply research findings to address health threats at the human-animal-environment interface. Research translation is essential for the creation of evidence-based policies and programs for the prevention and control of infectious diseases and other health threats, and thus is an important component of a robust national capacity to effectively prevent, control, and mitigate biological incidents. However, there is a lack of conceptual guidance and training materials for research translation in a One Health context. To address this need, we developed a novel One Health Research Translation Framework that describes an iterative process for research and policy stakeholders to collaborate to design and implement research applications addressing One Health zoonotic disease challenges. In addition, we developed accompanying training materials to validate the Framework and facilitate capacity building for understanding and applying research translation concepts to zoonotic disease threats. The training materials consist of exercises to map One Health communication pathways and literature-based case studies on research translation to address zoonotic disease concerns. The Framework and training materials were piloted with Egyptian One Health stakeholders at a workshop in Cairo in 2018. The outcomes of the workshop validated the comprehensiveness and applicability of the Framework and training materials, as participants were able to demonstrate a firm understanding of research translation processes and successfully apply research translation and One Health concepts to real-world zoonotic disease scenarios. Overall, the Framework and accompanying training materials address an important gap in capacity building for One Health stakeholders and are valuable tools for strengthening research translation networks that promote development of innovative, evidence-based solutions to One Health zoonotic disease threats.

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.
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.
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.
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.
Our co-creation approach brought together a community of practice of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers as equal partners.

Despite the growing expectation that researchers report the impact of their research using a case study approach, systematic reviews of research impact have focused on frameworks, indicators, methods of data collection and assessment rather than impact case studies. Our aim is to provide an overview of the characteristics of published research impact case studies, including translation activities, and their reporting quality. We searched for peer-reviewed impact studies published between 2000 and 2018 using a case study approach and selected 25 suitable papers. We applied descriptive statistics to study characteristics, conducted thematic analysis of research translation activities and assessed reporting quality using the 10-point ISRIA statement. 24 papers reported intermediate impacts, such as advocacy, or the development of statements, tools, or technology. 4 reported on longer-term societal impacts, such as health outcomes and economic return on investment. 7 reported on translation activities. Papers scored well against the ISRIA statement on 5 domains of reporting quality. Weakest scores centred around identification of stakeholder needs and stakeholder involvement, and ethics and conflict of interest. We identified the need for more consistency in reporting through a case study approach, more systematic reporting of translation pathways and greater transparency concerning estimated costs and benefits of the research and its translation and impact assessment.

While there is a growing interest in the field of research translation, there are few published examples of public health interventions that have been effectively scaled up and implemented in the community. This paper provides a case study of the community-wide implementation of the Melbourne Infant, Feeding, Activity and Nutrition Trial (InFANT), an obesity prevention program for parents with infants aged 3-18 months. The study explored key factors influencing the translation of the Program into routine practice and the respective role of policy makers, researchers and implementers.
Case studies were conducted of five of the eight prevention areas in Victoria, Australia who implemented the Program. Cases were selected on the basis of having implemented the Program for 6 months or more. Data were collected from January to June 2015 and included 18 individual interviews, one focus group and observation of two meetings. A total of 28 individuals, including research staff (n = 4), policy makers (n = 2) and implementers (n = 22), contributed to the data collected. Thematic analysis was conducted using cross case comparisons and key themes were verified through member checking.
Key facilitators of implementation included availability of a pre-packaged evidence based program addressing a community need, along with support and training provided by research staff to local implementers. Partnerships between researchers and policy makers facilitated initial program adoption, while local partnerships supported community implementation. Community partnerships were facilitated by local coordinators through alignment of program goals with existing policies and services. Workforce capacity for program delivery and administration was a challenge, largely overcome by embedding the Program into existing roles. Adapting the Program to fit local circumstance was critical for feasible and sustainable delivery, however balancing this with program fidelity was a critical issue. The lack of ongoing funding to support translation activities was a barrier for researchers continued involvement in community implementation.
Policy makers, researchers and practitioners have important and complementary roles to play in supporting the translation of effective research interventions into practice. New avenues need to be explored to strengthen partnerships between researchers and end users to support the integration of effective public health research interventions into practice.