Co-designing policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: a protocol.

IF 2.5 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health Research & Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.17061/phrp34122404
Margaret Fono, Boe Rambaldini, Vita Christie, Kylie Gwynne
{"title":"Co-designing policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: a protocol.","authors":"Margaret Fono, Boe Rambaldini, Vita Christie, Kylie Gwynne","doi":"10.17061/phrp34122404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives and importance of study: In the public service context, co-design is novel and ever-expanding. Co-design brings together decision-makers and people impacted by a problem to unpack the problem and design solutions together. Government agencies are increasingly adopting co-design to understand and meet the unique needs of priority populations. While the literature illustrates a progressive uptake of co-design in service delivery, there is little evidence of co-design in policy development. We propose a qualitative study protocol to explore and synthesise the evidence (literary, experiential and theoretical) of co-design in public policy. This can inform a framework to guide policymakers who co-design health policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Methods: The study design is informed by a critical qualitative approach that comprises five successive stages. The study commences with the set-up of a co-design brains trust (CBT), comprising people with lived experience of being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander who have either co-designed with public agencies and/or have health policymaking expertise (stage 1) The brains trust will play a key role in guiding the protocol's methodology, data collection, reporting and co-designing a 'Version 1' framework to guide policymakers in co-designing health policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (the framework). Two realist evaluations will explore co-design in health policy settings to understand how co-design works for whom, under what circumstances, and how (stages 2 and 3) The findings of the realist evaluations will guide the CBT in developing the framework (stage 4). A process evaluation of the CBT setup and framework development will assess the degree to which the CBT achieved its intended objectives (stage 5). Conclusion: The proposed study will produce much-needed evidence to guide policymakers to share decision-making power and privilege the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when co-designing health policy. Learnings from this translational research will be shared via the CBT, academic papers, conference presentations and policy briefings.</p>","PeriodicalId":45898,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp34122404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives and importance of study: In the public service context, co-design is novel and ever-expanding. Co-design brings together decision-makers and people impacted by a problem to unpack the problem and design solutions together. Government agencies are increasingly adopting co-design to understand and meet the unique needs of priority populations. While the literature illustrates a progressive uptake of co-design in service delivery, there is little evidence of co-design in policy development. We propose a qualitative study protocol to explore and synthesise the evidence (literary, experiential and theoretical) of co-design in public policy. This can inform a framework to guide policymakers who co-design health policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Methods: The study design is informed by a critical qualitative approach that comprises five successive stages. The study commences with the set-up of a co-design brains trust (CBT), comprising people with lived experience of being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander who have either co-designed with public agencies and/or have health policymaking expertise (stage 1) The brains trust will play a key role in guiding the protocol's methodology, data collection, reporting and co-designing a 'Version 1' framework to guide policymakers in co-designing health policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (the framework). Two realist evaluations will explore co-design in health policy settings to understand how co-design works for whom, under what circumstances, and how (stages 2 and 3) The findings of the realist evaluations will guide the CBT in developing the framework (stage 4). A process evaluation of the CBT setup and framework development will assess the degree to which the CBT achieved its intended objectives (stage 5). Conclusion: The proposed study will produce much-needed evidence to guide policymakers to share decision-making power and privilege the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when co-designing health policy. Learnings from this translational research will be shared via the CBT, academic papers, conference presentations and policy briefings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民共同设计政策:协议书。
研究的目的和重要性:在公共服务领域,共同设计是一项新颖且不断扩展的工作。共同设计将决策者和受问题影响的人们聚集在一起,共同解读问题并设计解决方案。政府机构越来越多地采用协同设计来了解和满足重点人群的独特需求。虽然有文献表明,共同设计在服务提供中的应用在逐步增加,但在政策制定中采用共同设计的证据却很少。我们提出了一个定性研究方案,以探索和综合公共政策中共同设计的证据(文学、经验和理论)。这可以为与土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民共同设计卫生政策的政策制定者提供指导框架。研究方法:研究设计采用批判性定性方法,包括五个连续阶段。研究从建立共同设计智囊团(CBT)开始,智囊团由具有土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民生活经验的人组成,他们与公共机构共同设计过卫生政策,并且/或者具有卫生政策制定方面的专业知识(第 1 阶段)。智囊团将在指导协议的方法、数据收集、报告和共同设计 "第 1 版 "框架(框架)方面发挥关键作用,以指导政策制定者与土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民共同设计卫生政策。两项现实主义评估将探讨在卫生政策环境下的共同设计,以了解共同设计在什么情况下对什么人起作用,以及如何起作用(第 2 和第 3 阶段)。 现实主义评估的结果将指导 CBT 制定框架(第 4 阶段)。对 CBT 设置和框架制定的过程评价将评估 CBT 在多大程度上实现了预期目标(第 5 阶段)。结论:拟议的研究将提供急需的证据,以指导政策制定者在共同设计卫生政策时分享决策权并优先考虑土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民的意见。这项转化研究的成果将通过 CBT、学术论文、会议发言和政策简报进行分享。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Research & Practice
Public Health Research & Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Research & Practice is an open-access, quarterly, online journal with a strong focus on the connection between research, policy and practice. It publishes innovative, high-quality papers that inform public health policy and practice, paying particular attention to innovations, data and perspectives from policy and practice. The journal is published by the Sax Institute, a national leader in promoting the use of research evidence in health policy. Formerly known as The NSW Public Health Bulletin, the journal has a long history. It was published by the NSW Ministry of Health for nearly a quarter of a century. Responsibility for its publication transferred to the Sax Institute in 2014, and the journal receives guidance from an expert editorial board.
期刊最新文献
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' Quitline use and the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. Co-designing policy with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: a protocol. Acceptability of an asymptomatic COVID-19 screening program for schools in Victoria, Australia: a qualitative study with caregivers from priority populations. UV arrows descend from above: lessons from a mass media campaign to improve sun protection behaviours among young adults. Are they the same? Disentangling the concepts of implementation science research and population scale-up.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1