Health Promotion and the Importance of Translating Research Into Policy, Practice and Societal Impact

As the official journal of the Australian Health Promotion Association (AHPA), the Health Promotion Journal of Australia (HPJA) addresses health promotion issues; advances the health promotion profession; and supports positive system changes that benefit population health. The HPJA publishes high-quality research and critical perspectives from academics, decision-makers and practitioners and aims to improve knowledge and evidence for the health promotion field. This editorial introduces a new dedicated manuscript category, The Research to Policy Translation Brief, to provide a focus on research translation. Given that research and policy often operate in silos, and there is limited incentive for collaboration, there is a critical need for an accessible platform where the two systems can come together to collaborate and exchange ideas. The new Research to Policy Translation Brief will provide such an opportunity, promoting evidence-informed practice and policy-making. Evidence informed policy and decision making is crucial to tackle societies' health and wellbeing challenges. The HPJA's unique position in reaching researchers, policy actors and practitioners makes it an ideal vehicle for this initiative. This editorial also explores the common challenges that researchers, policymakers and practitioners face when collaborating, emphasising the importance of providing a platform to share lessons and evidence on successful and less successful research translation strategies.

Health Promotion requires transdisciplinary partnerships and the creation of intentional learning communities, where research and policy translation are common practice and drive change that leads to improved health, wellbeing and equity. Health Promotion research and practice needs to reach across multiple policy and academic fields. Collaboration between policymakers and researchers to inform policy and practice is frequent, however working together can be challenging, especially when involving multidisciplinary teams from both the research community and the public sector [1]. Studies have found that it takes an estimated 17 years for research findings to be translated into their intended settings [2]. Studies suggest that only 50%–65% of research evidence is used to inform policy and programmes, leading to missed opportunity to improve outcomes and significant resource burden for governments and broader society [3].

Uncovering ways to close this gap is fundamental if public policy outcomes are to be improved—the new Research to Policy Translation Brief is one such strategy, as it provides a knowledge-sharing platform that can describe what works to strengthen the effectiveness of research–policy collaborations. This is especially pertinent in Australia with the establishment of government evaluation entities (e.g., the Australian Centre for Evaluation in the Federal Treasurer's portfolio) which focuses on randomised controlled trials as the key form of evaluation and evidence building for translation into practice. Whilst these methods have their place—mostly in a clinical setting—the complex, wicked, societal level problems which health promotion deals with need far more adaptable, responsive, and real-time research that is translated into effective policy and action. The new HPJA Research to Policy Translation Brief will provide a platform for these conversations, exchanges and evidence-sharing.

While collaboration between policymakers and researchers is essential to effectively address these complex problems, the partnership between them is fraught, because of political, institutional and ideological issues that impact on their interactions [5]. More practical issues such as time, knowing about relevant research and a lack of networking or collegial relationships between researchers, policy makers and practitioners also contribute to this gap [6]. This can create obstacles and hurdles that must be overcome if the policy-making process is to benefit from the use of timely and practice-relevant research. Research evidence should be better recognised as a catalyst to achieve impactful outcomes on decision-making, policy, services and systems. While a solid foundation of knowledge about barriers to evidence-informed policy and practice already exists, publications in the brief would further promote the critical role of research evidence in advancing practical solutions. It will do this by guiding the design, implementation and evaluative assessments of policies that address identified challenges and measure their real-world impact. Similarly, practice and policy priorities can be better recognised by researchers, as an opportunity to partner with external stakeholders and support changes in practice, policy or systems, through knowledge co-production and evaluation.

The use of research evidence in decision-making is often overshadowed by competing pressures from multiple sectors, coupled with differing priorities, languages and timelines amongst health promotion actors. Research findings rarely speak for themselves, hence the important roles of researchers and academics in interpreting evidence and advocating for action through effective communication of their views is especially central [7]. However, the research and policy-making communities tend to operate in siloed systems that function with limited interaction [3]. Institutional and political drivers are so different that these systems, largely the academic research system and the bureaucratic policy-making system can operate independently without proper exchange of ideas, knowledge or perspectives. This gap between systems needs to be bridged for improved societal and community outcomes.

Translating research into policy and practice must be understood as a process, rather than an outcome. Traditionally, research defines success and impact with the publication and integration of research findings into policy/practice at the end of the research process. It is frequently assumed that research to policy/practice translation only occurs after completion of the research. The growing understanding is that the translation process is iterative and on-going and can begin at the inception of an idea. Bringing researchers, policymakers and practitioners together to explore the idea from differing perspectives creates the space for new insights and that leads to the development of policy relevant research questions that tackle current policy challenges. Rather than thinking about translation and impact at the end of the research process, research translation is iterative and cyclical and continues throughout the research and policy-making process generating evidence that can be used to address societal needs and be responsive to changing political climates.

A common misconception held by the research community towards the translation process is that research projects precede relationships. In reality, successful research projects often emerge from connections developed over time. Early and on-going engagement with stakeholders builds trust and paves the way for future opportunities. The element of trust fostered in formal and informal relationships is a critical precondition for achieving successful knowledge exchange, where the best available evidence informs policies [7, 8]. Strong relationships help policymakers despite tremendous pressures, consider research evidence when shaping decisions. Ultimately, successful translation involves guiding policy actors to ask the right questions.

To strengthen the impact of research on policy-making and implementation, the research community can embrace a more flexible and iterative approach. Rather than assuming their work to follow a systematically linear process—a pathway starting from hypothesis generati‑on and testing to conclusion—researchers can incorporate iterative revisions and adapt their questions and methods according to findings and stakeholder contexts. To move beyond the “publish or perish” mentality, researchers can seek to prioritise impact beyond the academy through informing policy and practice [9]. By embracing research as a non-linear process, they can view setbacks and unexpected turns as opportunities to revise and refine methods and questions. Setting realistic expectations and valuing this continuous refinement helps reposition research evidence as a vital resource to support and inform policy-making and implementation. This approach encourages a culture where quality and relevance become prioritised alongside publication volume, fostering more meaningful contributions to knowledge and society, and reducing research waste.

In addition, while publications are vital, contribution to the knowledge pool and the desire to solve real-world problems should be encouraged through transparency and dissemination via a knowledge sharing platform/mechanism. This platform can work both ways, with research informing practice; and gaps, challenges and opportunities observed from practice in turn informing future research priorities. The value and role of reproducibility will incentivise and enhance research quality rather than quantity. The new brief and the prospective publications therein will showcase successful research translation strategies and assist researchers to address these common misconceptions.

Policy-making is defined as the process through which governments translate their political vision into tangible programmes, services and actions, by allocating resources and funding to deliver public policy outcomes in communities [10]. Policy-making is often depicted as an orderly and cyclical process that starts with identification of a problem and flows through to the evaluation of the applied solution—typically in the form of a programme, service or structural change.

For health promotion efforts to be effective, researchers must actively participate in the policy-making process, and policymakers should seek to proactively involve researchers at each stage of the policy cycle. This collaboration ensures that research and evidence can be used to shape and influence decision making, guiding development of policies and ultimately promoting better health and health equity outcomes.

As the European Commission notes, “Ultimately, any government, at any stage, is measured by its policy decisions and consequences, which puts a high premium on improving decision making as a mechanism, in order to try to produce the desired results” [11]. An evidence-informed approach to policy-making is more efficient and cost-effective than traditional policy formulation methods, which can be constrained by time and political considerations and may lack a foundation in evidence [12]. By integrating evidence-informed strategies throughout the policy cycle, policymakers have the capacity to guide decision-making, ensuring their initiatives are impactful and sustainable.

Health promotion has a long history of fostering the translation of knowledge and evidence into practical and impactful policies, programmes and services. However, as the field of health promotion has expanded to address increasingly complex societal issues such as the social determinants of health equity, poverty and social injustice, the health impacts of climate and the digital and commercial determinants of health, the obstacles to translating evidence into effective and impactful policy and practice are also expanding. This paper argues that the health promotion community needs to build on its early research translation successes by becoming more sophisticated and nuanced in the research–policy translation process.

In response, the HPJA will introduce a new type of publication: The Research to Policy Translation Brief. This brief aims to support the health promotion community to share evaluated strategies that can provide insights on ‘what works’ for facilitating the translation of research, knowledge and evidence into policy, practice and societal impact. It aims to emphasise the critical need for health promotion researchers, policymakers and practitioners to embed collaborative knowledge translation strategies into their work, to increase their demonstrable impact upon health promotion research and practice. Submission requirements can be found in the publication guidelines.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.