Scoping review of practice-focused resources to support the implementation of place-based approaches.

Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: Australia NLM ID: 9710936 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1036-1073 (Print) Linking ISSN: 10361073 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Promot J Austr Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: 2018- : Milton, Queensland : Wiley
Original Publication: West Perth, WA : Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals,

Health Promotion*/organization & administration ; Health Promotion*/methods; Humans ; Evidence-Based Practice

Issue Addressed: There is increasing interest across public health research, policy, and practice in place-based approaches to improve health outcomes. Practice-focused resources, such as grey literature, courses and websites, are utilised by practitioners to support the implementation of place-based approaches.
Methods: A detailed search of two search engines: Google and DuckDuckGo to identify free practice-focused resources was conducted.
Results: Forty-one resources met inclusion criteria, including 26 publications, 13 web-based resources and two courses. They were mainly focused on collaboration, developed by not-for-profit organisations, focused on a broad target audience, and supported people living with disadvantage. The publications we reviewed generally: clearly stated important information, such as the author of the publication; used their own evaluations, professional experience and other grey literature as supporting evidence; included specific, practical implementation strategies; and were easy to read.
Conclusions: Based on findings, we recommend that: (1) the development of resources to support evidence-informed practice and governance be prioritised; (2) resources clearly state their target audience and tailor communication to this audience; (3) resources draw on evidence from a range of sources; (4) resources continue to include practical implementation strategies supported by examples and (5) resource content be adaptable to different contexts (e.g., different settings and/or target populations). SO WHAT?: This is the first review of practice-focused resources to support the implementation of place-based approaches and the findings can be used to reduce duplication of efforts and inform future research, policy, and practice, particularly the refinement of existing resources and the development of future resources.
(© 2023 The Authors. Health Promotion Journal of Australia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Health Promotion Association.)

Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(1):125–139.
Pickett KE, Pearl M. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(2):111–122.
Miller P, Podvysotska T, Betancur L, Votruba‐Drzal E. Wealth and child development: differences in associations by family income and developmental stage. RSF: Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci. 2021;7(3):154–174.
McGowan VJ, Buckner S, Mead R, McGill E, Ronzi S, Beyer F, et al. Examining the effectiveness of place‐based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1888.
Rushton C. Whose place is it anyway? Representational politics in a place‐based health initiative. Health Place. 2014;26:100–109.
Tanton R, Dare L, Miranti R, Vidyattama Y, McCabe M. Dropping off the edge report: persistent and multilayered disadvantage in Australia. Melbourne: Jesuit Social Services; 2021.
Sellström E, Bremberg S. The significance of neighbourhood context to child and adolescent health and well‐being: a systematic review of multilevel studies. Scand J Public Health. 2006;34(5):544–554.
Dundas R, Leyland AH, Macintyre S. Early‐life school, neighborhood, and family influences on adult health: a multilevel cross‐classified analysis of the Aberdeen children of the 1950s study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(2):197–207.
Weitzman BC, Mijanovich T, Silver D, Brecher C. Finding the impact in a messy intervention: using an integrated design to evaluate a comprehensive citywide health initiative. Am J Eval. 2009;30(4):495–514.
Bellefontaine T, Wisener R. The evaluation of place‐based approaches: questions for future research. Ottawa: Government of Canada, Policy Horizons Canada; 2011, June.
Bond L, Law D, Calder R. Place based approaches to population health and wellbeing: why do it? What is it? Does it work? How do you do it well? Melbourne Australia: Mitchell Institute for Education and Health Policy, Victoria University; 2018.
Moore T, Fry R. Place‐based approaches to child and family services: a literature review. Parkville, Victoria: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and the Royal Children's Hospital Centre for Community Child Health; 2011.
Foell A, Pitzer KA. Geographically targeted place‐based community development interventions: a systematic review and examination of studies' methodological rigor. Hous Policy Debate. 2020;30(5):741–765.
Lin ES, Flanagan SK, Varga SM, Zaff JF, Margolius M. The impact of comprehensive community initiatives on population‐level child, youth, and family outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(3–4):479–503.
Niqresh M. Mechanisms for the appraisal of electronic information resources. IES. 2019;12(2):67.
LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):751.
Yamada J, Shorkey A, Barwick M, Widger K, Stevens BJ. The effectiveness of toolkits as knowledge translation strategies for integrating evidence into clinical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e006808.
Karlsson LE, Takahashi R. Annex 4. Selection of tools for appraising evidence [Internet]. A resource for developing an evidence synthesis report for policy‐making [Internet]. WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2017 [cited 2022 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453537/.
Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy‐Westropp N, Kumar VS, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004;4(1):22.
Temple University Libraries. Tools for critical appraisal: critical appraisal checklists by specific study design type [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://guides.temple.edu/systematicreviews/criticalappraisal.
Kurpiel S. Evaluating sources: the CRAAP test [Internet]. Benedictine University Library. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 4]. Available from: https://researchguides.ben.edu/source-evaluation.
Mandalios J. RADAR: an approach for helping students evaluate internet sources. J Inf Sci. 2013;39:470–478.
Public Health Ontario. Public Health Ontario guide to appraising grey literature. Toronto: Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion; 2015.
Tyndall J. AACODS checklist. Adelaide, Australia: Flinders University; 2010.
Crimeen A, Bernstein M, Zapart S, Haigh F. Place‐based interventions: a realist informed literature review. Sydney, Australia: Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE); 2018, May.
Laidlaw B, Fry R, Keyes M, West S. Big thinking on place: getting place‐based approaches moving [Internet]. Parkville, Victoria: Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and The Royal Children's Hospital Centre for Community Child Health; 2014 [cited 2021 Jun 23]. Available from: https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/CCCH_Collaborate_for_Children_Report_Big_Thinking_Nov2014.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/rKkM6.
Centre for Community Child Health. Place‐based initiatives transforming communities: proceedings from the place‐based approaches roundtable [Internet]. Murdoch Children's Research Institute; 2012 [cited 2020 Dec 31]. Available from: https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/CCCH_Place-based_initiatives_report.pdf.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
Klepac B, Mowle A, Klamert L, Riley T, Craike M. How can I get the best result from my internet search? Methods snapshot [Internet]. Pathways in place, Victoria University; 2022. https://doi.org/10.26196/zx9g-vt30.
Oberlo. Search engine market share in 2022 [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://archive.ph/mwZe3.
Price C. 20 great search engines you can use instead of Google [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 30]. Available from: https://archive.ph/BSai5.
COTW. The dark side of google: a closer look at privacy concerns [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 23]. Available from: https://campaignsoftheworld.com/news/the-dark-side-of-google/.
Corporation for Digital Scholarship. Zotero [Internet]. 2023. Available from: www.zotero.org/download.
Lumivero. NVivo [Internet]. QSR International Inc.; 2020. Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.
Fereday J, Muir‐Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
Jackson K, Bazeley P. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Washington DC: SAGE; 2019. p. 377.
Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Limited; 2021. p. 1–440.
Action Aid. Village Book: community led planning and development process, a training manual [Internet]. ActionAid; 2014 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://actionaid.org/publications/2014/village-book-training-manual-community-led-and-planning-process Archived at: https://archive.ph/Y9gCo.
Active Neighbourhoods Canada. Tool box – co‐design exercises [Internet]. Co‐designing the active city. n.d. Available from: https://participatoryplanning.ca/tools Archived at: https://archive.ph/ETuxe.
Appel K, Buckingham E, Jodoin K, Roth D. Participatory learning and action toolkit: for application in BSR's Global Programs [Internet]. BSR; 2012. Available from: https://herproject.org/files/toolkits/HERproject-Participatory-Learning.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/pyirb.
Aspire Learning Resources. Work with groups to achieve community development outcomes [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://tafe-media.cqu.edu.au/tafe/aspire_version2/batch-2/chccde003v1.1/topic-3/topic-3.html Archived at: https://archive.ph/aOytQ.
Benetua L, Simon N, Garcia SM. Community issue exhibition toolkit: how to make an exhibition with your community so people take action on an issue that matters [Internet]. Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History; 2018. Available from: https://www.culturehive.co.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2019/06/Community‐Issue‐Exhibition‐Toolkit‐FINAL.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/Sr5Gf.
Clear Horizon. Planning tool for place‐based evaluation framework. Scoping out a MEL plan for a place‐based delivery approach [Internet]. Clear Horizon Academy; 2018. Available from: https://d2y5h3osumboay.cloudfront.net/syr06ibhfe5nq0n4hg0fbhuih1zl Archived at: https://archive.ph/b9WyT.
Clear Impact. The collective impact toolkit: a collection of tools designed to help launch and sustain your collective impact initiative [Internet]. Clear Impact; 2016 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://clearimpact.com/resources/publications/collective-impact-toolkit/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/ymyRO.
Collaboration for Impact. Platform C [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://platformc.org/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/4fRlk.
Community First Development. A first nations approach to community development [Internet]. Community First Development; 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://ncq.org.au/resources/a-first-nations-approach-to-community-development/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/vOgvl.
Community Places. Community planning toolkit – community engagement [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/Engagement.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/2ydfJ.
Community Toolbox. Community toolbox – tools to change our world [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://ctb.ku.edu/en Archived at: https://archive.ph/NhueA.
Corcoran M, Hanleybrown F, Steinberg A, Tallant K. Collective impact for opportunity youth. Boston, MA: FSG; 2012.
County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. Action learning guides [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/take-action-to-improve-health/learning-guides Archived at: https://archive.ph/aEjc7.
Dart J. Place‐based evaluation framework: a guide for evaluation of place‐based approaches in Australia [Internet]. Clear Horizon; 2018. Available from: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2019/place-based-evaluation-framework-final-accessible-version.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/RJVc0.
Dart J. Toolkit for evaluating placed‐based delivery approaches [Internet]. Clear Horizon; 2018. Available from: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2019/place‐based‐evaluation‐evaluation‐framework‐toolkit‐final‐accessible‐ve.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/ubUO2.
Department of Premier and Cabinet. A framework for place‐based approaches [Internet]. State Government of Victoria; 2020. Available from: https://www.vic.gov.au/framework-place-based-approaches Archived at: https://archive.ph/hc0lD.
Duncan D. The components of effective collective impact [Internet]. Clear Impact; 2016. Available from: https://dokumen.tips/documents/the-components-of-effective-collective-impact-abcd-in-components-effective.html?page=1 Archived at: https://archive.ph/lVzAV.
Eclipse. User‐centred community engagement [Internet]. n.d. Available from: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5818a9ed2994ca08210fdb36/t/5da5cdbdf5bd7b006c77a118/1571147208381/UCCE+Children+Co‐creation+Session+guide+%28Ethiopia%29.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/3bqRx.
Georgetown Climate Center. Equitable adaptation toolkit [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/toolkits/equitable‐adaptation‐toolkit/introduction.html?full Archived at: https://archive.ph/VUzfM.
Leahy D, Taylor W, Jeanes R, Welch R, Duhn I, Cumbo B, et al. Kids helping co‐design healthy places: the co‐design model in action [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://kidscodesigninghealthyplaces.com.au/local‐council‐staff/co‐design‐in‐action Archived at: https://archive.ph/35B4B.
New South Wales Government – Agency for Clinical Innovation. Co‐design toolkit: working as equals in leadership, design and decision making [Internet]. n.d. [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/projects/co-design Archived at: https://archive.ph/e7Gkf.
New South Wales Government – Fair Trading. The Talkin' Together Toolkit [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/resource‐library/publications/talkin‐together‐toolkit Archived at: https://archive.ph/xh8n1.
New South Wales Government – Movement and Place. Evaluator's guide: a guide to evaluating built environment projects and plans that balance movement and place in NSW [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.movementandplace.nsw.gov.au/place-and-network/guides/evaluators-guide.
New South Wales Government – Movement and Place. Practitioner's guide to movement and place implementing movement and place in NSW [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.movementandplace.nsw.gov.au/place‐and‐network/guides/practitioners‐guide.
Northern Territory Government. Remote engagement and coordination online toolkit [Internet]. https://bushready.nt.gov.au; 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://bushready.nt.gov.au/good-engagement/values-and-principles Archived at: https://archive.ph/TNtLi.
Our Place. Place standard tool [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.ourplace.scot/toolbox/about-place-standard Archived at: https://archive.ph/eZcwC.
Place Agency. Modules [Internet]. Place agency‐modules. n.d. [cited 2022 Jul 3]. Available from: https://teaching.placeagency.org.au/modules/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/rDCsz.
Proximity of Care, Arup & the Bernard van Leer Foundation. Co‐creation workshop with children and caregivers [Internet]. Arup & the Bernard van Leer Foundation; 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://www.proximityofcare.com/post/poc-tool-co-creation-workshop Archived at: https://archive.ph/Dx6sb.
Public Health England, University of Manchester. Place‐based approaches to reducing health inequalities: evaluation toolkit for local areas [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007778/Toolkit_for_local_areas.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/IVEMn.
QCOSS. Place‐based approaches for community change: QCOSS guide and toolkit [Internet]. Queensland Council of Social Service; 2019. Available from: https://www.qcoss.org.au/contents-page-for-place-based-approach-and-toolkit/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/t8nSQ.
SPARCC. Igniting systems change [Internet]. SPARCC; 2018. Available from: http://www.sparcchub.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Systems-Change-Guide-FINAL.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/Ms5dl.
Sridharan S. The top 10 questions: a guide to evaluating place‐based initiatives [Internet]. Policy Horizons Canada, Government of Canada; 2011. Available from: https://ccednet-rcdec.ca/sites/ccednet-rcdec.ca/files/2011-phc-sridharan-evaluating_place-based-e.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/GQkKZ.
The Harwood Institute. Do‐it‐yourself resources [Internet]. The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation. n.d. [cited 2022 Jul 21]. Available from: https://theharwoodinstitute.org/resources-2021 Archived at: https://archive.ph/2pJr6.
Business in the Community, The Prince's Responsible Business Network. A step‐by‐step guide to delivering a place‐based approach: report and toolkit [Internet]. Business in the Community; 2019. Available from: https://www.bitc.org.uk/taking-a-place-based-approach-guide-and-toolkit/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/nzGKk.
The Tamarack Institute. Resource library [Internet]. Tamarack Community. 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/library Archived at: https://archive.ph/csFDf.
Thomson A, Rabsch K, Barnard S, Dainty A, Hassan T, Bonder G, et al. Community of practice co‐creation toolkit v.2. [Internet]. ACT Consortium; 2020. Available from: https://www.act‐on‐gender.eu/nes/act‐community‐practice‐co‐creation‐toolkit‐support‐communities‐practice‐promoting‐gender Archived at: https://archive.ph/oD7d7.
Victorian Council of Social Service, Mukherjee D, Sayers M. Communities taking power: using place‐based approaches to deliver local solutions to poverty and disadvantage [Internet]. VCOSS; 2016. Available from: https://vcoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Communities_Taking_Power_FINAL_WebUpload.pdf Archived at: https://archive.ph/g0ZBO.
Volunteering Tasmania. Safeguarding volunteering project – co‐design resources [Internet]. Volunteering Tasmania. 2021. Available from: https://www.volunteeringtas.org.au/future-of-volunteering/safeguarding-volunteering-project/#/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/BSdPG.
Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS). WACOSS co‐design toolkit [Internet]. WACOSS; 2017. Available from: https://www.wacoss.org.au/library/co-design-toolkit/ Archived at: https://archive.ph/WufVo.
Banks G. Evidence‐based policy‐making: what is it? How do we get it? [Internet]. 2009. Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/news-media/speeches/cs20090204/20090204-evidence-based-policy.pdf.
Graham ID, Kothari A, McCutcheon C. Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):22.
Meagher L, Lyall C. The invisible made visible: using impact evaluations to illuminate and inform the role of knowledge intermediaries. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2013;9:409–418.
Pineo H, Turnbull ER, Davies M, Rowson M, Hayward AC, Hart G, et al. A new transdisciplinary research model to investigate and improve the health of the public. Health Promot Int. 2021;36(2):481–492.
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay É. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):444–483.
Smith K. Beyond evidence‐based policy in public health [Internet]. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2013 [cited 2021 Jan 19]. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137026583.
Albert M, Laberge S, McGuire W. Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: the views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. High Educ. 2012;64(5):661–676.
Klepac B, Krahe M, Spaaij R, Craike M. Six public policy recommendations to increase the translation and utilization of research evidence in public health practice. Public Health Reports [Internet]. 2022 Oct 14 [cited 2022 Oct 16]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/NR4SPXWRGYQZRN3GMJKQ/full.
Hakkarainen V, Mäkinen‐Rostedt K, Horcea‐Milcu A, D'Amato D, Jämsä J, Soini K. Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts. Sustain Dev. 2022;30(2):309–325.
Cabaj M, Weaver L. Collective impact 3.0: an evolving framework for community change [Internet]. Toronto: Tamarack Institute; 2016. p. 14 (Community Change Series). Available from: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/316071/Events/CCI/2016_CCI_Toronto/CCI_Publications/Collective_Impact_3.0_FINAL_PDF.pdf.
Brown EC, Hawkins JD, Rhew IC, Shapiro VB, Abbott RD, Oesterle S, et al. Prevention system mediation of communities that care effects on youth outcomes. Prev Sci. 2014;15(5):623–632.
Zaff JF, Donlan AE, Pufall Jones E, Lin ES. Supportive developmental systems for children and youth: a theoretical framework for comprehensive community initiatives. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2015;40:1–7.
George C, Reed MG. Operationalising just sustainability: towards a model for place‐based governance. Local Environ. 2017;22(9):1105–1123.
Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):61.
Hateley‐Browne J, Hodge L, Polimeni M, Mildon M. Implementation in action: a guide to implementing evidence‐informed programs and practices. Southbank, VIC, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies – Commonwealth of Australia; 2019.
Dupre ME, Moody J, Nelson A, Willis JM, Fuller L, Smart AJ, et al. Place‐based initiatives to improve health in disadvantaged communities: cross‐sector characteristics and networks of local actors in North Carolina. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(9):1548–1555.
Hardwick R, Anderson R, Cooper C. How do third sector organisations use research and other knowledge? A systematic scoping review. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):84.
Finnigan KS, Daly AJ, Che J. Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: the role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence. J Educ Adm. 2013;51(4):476–497.
Klepac B, Krahe M, Spaaij R, Calder R, Craike M. Increasing research evidence translation and utilisation to improve population health outcomes. Policy evidence brief [Internet]. Melbourne, Australia: Mitchell Institute, Victoria University; 2022. https://doi.org/10.26196/0bck-q209.
Kneale D, Rojas‐García A, Thomas J. Obstacles and opportunities to using research evidence in local public health decision‐making in England. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):61.
Green LW. Making research relevant: if it is an evidence‐based practice, where's the practice‐based evidence? Fam Pract. 2008;25(Suppl 1):i20–i24.
Green LW, Glasgow RE, Atkins D, Stange K. Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice: slips “twixt cup and lip”. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(6):S187–S191.
Ammerman A, Smith TW, Calancie L. Practice‐based evidence in public health: improving reach, relevance, and results. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):47–63.
Halliday E, Tompson A, McGill E, Egan M, Popay J. Strategies for knowledge exchange for action to address place‐based determinants of health inequalities: an umbrella review. J Public Health. 2022;45:e467–e477.
Wood L, Zuber‐Skerritt O. Community‐based research in higher education: research partnerships for the common good. In: Wood L, editor. Community‐based research with vulnerable populations: ethical, inclusive and sustainable frameworks for knowledge generation [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86402-6_1.
Thomas R, Zimmer‐Gembeck MJ, Chaffin M. Practitioners' views and use of evidence‐based treatment: positive attitudes but missed opportunities in children's services. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014;41(3):368–378.
Despard MR. Challenges in implementing evidence‐based practices and programs in nonprofit human service organizations. J Evid‐Inf Soc Work. 2016;13(6):505–522.
Bach‐Mortensen AM, Montgomery P. What are the barriers and facilitators for third sector organisations (non‐profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):13.
Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, Dobbins M, Pettman T, Burns C, et al. Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence‐informed public health decision‐making in a local government setting. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0188-7.
Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Green LW. Building capacity for evidence‐based public health: reconciling the pulls of practice and the push of research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:27–53.
Mallidou AA, Atherton P, Chan L, Frisch N, Glegg S, Scarrow G. Core knowledge translation competencies: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):502.
Grossmann A, Brembs B. Current market rates for scholarly publishing services [Internet]. F1000Research; 2021 [cited 2023 Aug 31]. Available from: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-20.
Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion‐dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021;6(1):14.
Pettman TL, Armstrong R, Pollard B, Evans R, Stirrat A, Scott I, et al. Using evidence in health promotion in local government: contextual realities and opportunities. Health Promot J Austr. 2013;24(1):72–75.
LaPelle NR, Dahlen K, Gabella BA, Juhl AL, Martin E. Overcoming inertia: increasing public health departments' access to evidence‐based information and promoting usage to inform practice. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):77–80.
Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):139.
Bunger AC, Powell BJ, Robertson HA, MacDowell H, Birken SA, Shea C. Tracking implementation strategies: a description of a practical approach and early findings. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:15.
Hussaini A, Pulido CL, Basu S, Ranjit N. Designing place‐based interventions for sustainability and replicability: the case of GO! Austin/VAMOS! Austin. Front Public Health. 2018;6:88.
Armstrong R, Waters E, Crockett B, Keleher H. The nature of evidence resources and knowledge translation for health promotion practitioners. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(3):254–260.

681 Paul Ramsay Foundation

Keywords: community development; evidence based practice; systematic review

Date Created: 20230913 Date Completed: 20240723 Latest Revision: 20240723

20240723

10.1002/hpja.809

37705138