Implementation Of Research Findings Research Articles

Assessment of the quality of interdisciplinary communication (CritCom): evaluation and refinement of a center summary report.

Communication failures among clinicians in the ICU (intensive care unit) often lead to worse patient outcomes. CritCom is a bilingual (English and Spanish) tool to evaluate the quality of interdisciplinary communication around patient deterioration for pediatric oncology patients. The use of reports, such as the CritCom report, as dissemination methods lead to quicker knowledge translation and implementation of research findings into policy. Nurses and physicians at participating centers who care for patients at risk of deterioration completed the CritCom survey and center-specific reports were generated to communicate CritCom results. Focus groups were conducted with clinicians receiving CritCom reports in both English and Spanish to evaluate report clarity and usability. Participants found the reports to be useful and described the writing and design as clear and specific. Participants provided feedback to improve report design and requested actionable steps to improve communication at their center. Feedback illustrated that the report was easy to interpret and a useful way to disseminate information. Participants noted the utility of the report, illustrating that the use of reports can be a useful method to disseminate research findings back to participants in a way that is applicable to the local context. Communicating research findings through reports can minimize the significant time lag in knowledge translation and provide participants with actionable steps to implement in their setting.

Developing a community-responsive research model in the healthcare system: a mixed-method study

BackgroundResponsiveness to the population’s non-clinical needs encompasses various dimensions, including responsive research and an educational outreach plan at the community level. This study aims to develop a community-responsive research model in the healthcare system to ensure the connection between community-identified health priorities and research funds, as well as capacity-building efforts.MethodsA mixed-methods research study was conducted in three main phases, including a comprehensive literature review, a qualitative analysis of an expert panel’s points of view, and the developing of a model using the Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. R software version 3.2.4 was used to conduct statistical analysis, considering a significance level of 0.05.ResultsBased on the literature review, 41 responsiveness components were identified from sixteen relevant studies conducted between 2000 and 2022. Ten sub-themes in four major themes, including planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and action, were identified through qualitative content analysis. Standardized coefficients revealed that components such as dissemination of results to all stakeholders, research prioritization aligned with community needs, commitment to implement research findings, and collaborative learning had statistically significant effects on the community-responsive research model.ConclusionIt is essential to identify community health priorities by following a community-focused, priority-setting process based on the principles of community engagement to develop a community-responsive research model. Afterward, dissemination of research findings to all stakeholders, commitment to apply the obtained results in the real world, and promotion of shared learning among research partners have been proven to facilitate collaborative investigation and mutual understanding between the community and academic partners.

Mapping stakeholders to maximise the impact of research on health inequalities for people with learning disabilities: The development of a framework for the Making Positive Moves study

AbstractBackgroundPeople with learning disabilities experience health and social inequalities, and research that could improve health services may not be implemented in real‐life settings. Building stakeholder networks that can share and implement research findings may address this. This paper presents a framework for building a stakeholder network that maximises the likelihood of research recommendations being implemented in practice. This was developed as part of the ‘Making Positive Moves’ (MPM) study, which explores the experiences of people with learning disabilities following discharge from a residential stay within a hospital inpatient setting.MethodsWe reviewed the literature on existing theoretical frameworks to support the development of a model for dissemination of the MPM findings. Stakeholder categories were identified through consultation with the MPM researchers, experts by experience and the steering group and a hub and spoke model to represent all stakeholder categories was created. These categories include person moving; family of the person moving; specialist schools; social care; care providers; regulators; third sector organisations; policy organisations; academic community; and NHS professionals. After establishing the categories, we consulted with people with learning disabilities and other stakeholders and conducted online searches to create a stakeholder database. Through information gathering and direct contact with stakeholders, we assessed levels of interest, power and engagement to determine which stakeholders to prioritise in our dissemination activities. The Stakeholder Wheel was created to present the data captured within the database and engagement profiles in an illustrative way.FindingsWe use two stakeholder sub‐categories, user‐led organisations and care providers, to demonstrate the methodological approach. The examples illustrate how a scoring system helped us to identify high‐priority stakeholders who we then contacted to collaborate within developing our dissemination strategy to maximise the impact of the MPM research findings.ConclusionsWe developed a framework to map stakeholders for the MPM study and enable targeted dissemination to increase the impact of the research. This approach has the potential to reduce health inequalities among people with learning disabilities by increasing the awareness of and ability to implement evidence‐based recommendations in real‐life settings. The stakeholder mapping framework could be applied to research projects associated with learning disabilities to bridge the gap between research and practice and reduce health inequalities.

From Research to Retweets—Exploring the Role of Educational Twitter (X) Communities in Promoting Science Communication and Evidence-Based Teaching

Twitter has evolved from its initial purpose as a microblogging social network to a pivotal platform for science communication. Equally, it has gained significant popularity among teachers who utilize communities like the German #twitterlehrerzimmer (TWLZ; Twitter teachers’ lounge) as a digital professional learning network. (1) Background: To date, no studies examine how science communication is conducted on Twitter specifically tailored to teachers’ needs and whether this facilitates evidence-based teaching. (2) Methods: Answering the three research questions involved a comprehensive mixed methods approach comprising an online teacher survey, utility analysis using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) models, and machine learning-assisted tweet analyses. (3) Results: Teachers implement research findings from the TWLZ in their teaching about twice a month. They prefer interactive tweets with specific content-related, communicative, and interactive tweet features. Science communication in the TWLZ differs from everyday communication but notably emphasizes the relevance of transfer events for educational practice. (4) Conclusions: Findings highlight that dialogue is essential for successful science communication. Practical implications arise from new guidelines on how research findings should be communicated and encourage teachers to reflect on their Twitter usage and attitude toward evidence-based teaching. Recommendations for further research in this emerging field are also discussed.

Pressure Ulcer Preventive Measures Utilized and Its Perceived Effectiveness Among Nurses in Selected Hospitals in Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria

Background: Pressure ulcers represent a largely preventable patient safety issue, serving as an indicator of nursing care quality and patient safety within healthcare settings. This study aimed to assess the utilization and effectiveness of pressure ulcer preventive measures among nurses in selected hospitals.
 Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional survey involved 304 nurses purposefully selected from surgical wards/units in the chosen hospitals. A well-structured, pretested questionnaire with a reliability index of 0.842 was employed for data collection. Descriptive statistics, including mean, frequency, and percentage, were used for data analysis.
 Results: Findings indicated that risk assessment (mean 3.67±0.56) was the most frequently used preventive measure, followed by skin repositioning every 2 hours (3.46±0.71), use of barrier creams (3.35±0.71), and the utilization of pressure-relieving devices such as air beds (3.33±0.75). Prophylactic sacral dressing (3.14±0.76) and massaging of bony prominences (3.17±0.86) were also commonly employed. The most effective measures were risk assessment (mean 2.66±0.5), repositioning every 2 hours (2.56±0.54), and skin assessment (2.54±0.54). Barriers to preventive measures included limited equipment (3.31±0.96), nursing shortages (3.12±0.77), lack of skill/training (3.09±0.85), and heavy workloads (3.14±0.82).
 Conclusion And Recommendation: This study highlights that risk assessment was the most used and effective preventive measure among nurses. Challenges, such as the lack of training and heavy workloads, hindered utilization. Recommendations include regular updates on best practices for staff, especially new nurses, to bridge the theory-practice gap and promptly implement research findings.

Designing for dissemination among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.

The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters' contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA. We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing. Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence. Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and mademore sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

The Philosophical Dimensions of Teachers’ Research Literacy

In this paper, I investigate the place of philosophical literacy in teachers’ research literacy. Drawing on Pring, Bridges and Winch, I ask what the relationship is between being “research literate” in the field of education and understanding key philosophical debates in the field. I hold that properly implementing research findings in educational practice depends on a philosophical understanding of (a) normative, (b) conceptual and (c) methodological matters and that, therefore, “research literacy” in education must also include “philosophical literacy”. I question whether it is too much to expect that, in order to become research literate, teachers must also become philosophically literate. However, I demonstrate that questions of the utilisation of research cannot be separated from questions of the production of research. In the end, I hold that “research literacy” is simply a different way of looking at deep methodological questions that have always been part of the discipline of Education.

Learning health system benefits: Development and initial validation of a framework.

Implementation of research findings in clinical practice often is not realized or only partially achieved, and if so, with a significant delay. Learning health systems (LHSs) hold promise to overcome this problem by embedding clinical research and evidence-based best practices into care delivery, enabling innovation and continuous improvement. Implementing an LHS is a complex process that requires participation and resources of a wide range of stakeholders, including healthcare leaders, clinical providers, patients and families, payers, and researchers. Engaging these stakeholders requires communicating clear, tangible value propositions. Existing models identify broad categories of benefits but do not explicate the full range of benefits or ways they can manifest in different organizations. To develop such a framework, a working group with representatives from six Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs reviewed existing literature on LHS characteristics, models, and goals; solicited expert input; and applied the framework to their local LHS experiences. The Framework of LHS Benefits includes six categories of benefits (quality, safety, equity, patient satisfaction, reputation, and value) relevant for a range of stakeholders and defines key concepts within each benefit. Applying the framework to five LHS case examples indicated preliminary face validity across varied LHS approaches and revealed three dimensions in which the framework is relevant: defining goals of individual LHS projects, facilitating collaboration based on shared values, and establishing guiding tenets of an LHS program or mission. The framework can be used to communicate the value of an LHS to different stakeholders across varied contexts and purposes, and to identify future organizational priorities. Further validation will contribute to the framework's evolution and support its potential to inform the development of tools to evaluate LHS impact.

Engaging Operational Partners Is Critical for Successful Implementation of Research Products: a Coincidence Analysis of Access-Related Projects in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

Background/ObjectiveThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has prioritized timely access to care and has invested substantially in research aimed at optimizing veteran access. However, implementing research into practice remains challenging. Here, we assessed the implementation status of recent VHA access-related research projects and explored factors associated with successful implementation.DesignWe conducted a portfolio review of recent VHA-funded or supported projects (1/2015–7/2020) focused on healthcare access (“Access Portfolio”). We then identified projects with implementable research deliverables by excluding those that (1) were non-research/operational projects; (2) were only recently completed (i.e., completed on or after 1/1/2020, meaning that they were unlikely to have had time to be implemented); and (3) did not propose an implementable deliverable. An electronic survey assessed each project’s implementation status and elicited barriers/facilitators to implementing deliverables. Results were analyzed using novel Coincidence Analysis (CNA) methods.Participants/Key ResultsAmong 286 Access Portfolio projects, 36 projects led by 32 investigators across 20 VHA facilities were included. Twenty-nine respondents completed the survey for 32 projects (response rate = 88.9%). Twenty-eight percent of projects reported fully implementing project deliverables, 34% reported partially implementing deliverables, and 37% reported not implementing any deliverables (i.e., resulting tool/intervention not implemented into practice). Of 14 possible barriers/facilitators assessed in the survey, two were identified through CNA as “difference-makers” to partial or full implementation of project deliverables: (1) engagement with national VHA operational leadership; (2) support and commitment from local site operational leadership.ConclusionsThese findings empirically highlight the importance of operational leadership engagement for successful implementation of research deliverables. Efforts to strengthen communication and engagement between the research community and VHA local/national operational leaders should be expanded to ensure VHA’s investment in research leads to meaningful improvements in veterans’ care.Lay SummaryThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has prioritized timely access to care and has invested substantially in research aimed at optimizing veteran access. However, implementing research findings into clinical practice remains challenging, both within and outside VHA. Here, we assessed the implementation status of recent VHA access-related research projects and explored factors associated with successful implementation. Only two factors were identified as “difference-makers” to adoption of project findings into practice: (1) engagement with national VHA leadership or (2) support and commitment from local site leadership. These findings highlight the importance of leadership engagement for successful implementation of research findings. Efforts to strengthen communication and engagement between the research community and VHA local/national leaders should be expanded to ensure VHA’s investment in research leads to meaningful improvements in veterans’ care.

A framework to explain the in-match decision-making of elite Australian football coaches

The ability to make effective decisions is an important function of any football coach, whether during training, team selection, match-day performance or post-match player evaluation. It is not yet known how elite Australian football coaches make decisions during matches, in time-constrained but well-resourced environments. This study is the first to explore the decision-making of elite Australian football coaches during matches, in pursuit of identifying opportunities to improve the translation and implementation of research findings into the competitive match environment. Using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, a six-stage framework of the decision-making of elite Australian football coaches during matches was developed. The stages include (1) Opportunity trigger, (2) Understand the opportunity, (3) Determine the need for action, (4) Explore options, (5) Take action and (6) Evaluate the decision. Coaches relied on subjective and objective sources of information and consulted with assistant coaches, performance analysts, and sport scientists. The findings enable researchers to ensure future interventions to improve decision-making during matches are well integrated. They also provide an opportunity for coaches to reflect on their own decision-making process, identifying targeted areas for improvement in their own practice.

Bridging Knowledge Creation and Conservation Practice through Participatory Action Research on Private Lands

Ongoing failure to resolve how wildlife and people can co-exist on private land contributes to the global decline of wildlife populations. Experience in Tasmania, Australia suggests a disconnect between wildlife researchers, environmental agencies, and private landholders that prevents new scientific insights from translating into improved wildlife management practices. This case study based on a participatory action research model, describes a wildlife conservation initiative called WildTracker. WildTracker created hands-on collaborations among private landholders, university researchers, and the Tasmanian Land Conservancy (TLC). Landholders from 3 regions (total area 9977 km²) participated in an iterative 2-year research process involving problem-framing workshops, data collection (mammals, birds, and habitat) using wildlife cameras and sound recorders, data analysis, and discussion of results. Participants contributed more than 2,000 hours to the project, resulting in more than 500,000 wildlife observations, with many landholders now implementing research findings, guided by locality-specific data on wildlife populations, feral animals, and habitat condition. WildTracker has evolved from a short-term participatory research project into an ongoing collaborative citizen science program that is documenting and contributing to on-the-ground and evolving wildlife conservation outcomes.

Exercise prescription, intervention, dissemination, and implementation following transient ischemic attack or stroke: advancing the field through interdisciplinary science.

Lay Summary Research has demonstrated that both exercise, and a reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors (i.e., high blood sugar, blood lipids, and blood pressure), following a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are beneficial for reducing risk of recurrent stroke or TIA and for improving overall quality of life. Despite this evidence, many stroke and TIA survivors remain inactive and sedentary and present with multiple CVD risk factors. The purpose of this commentary is to highlight gaps in the current literature in regard to exercise and behavior interventions for the stroke and TIA populations, present ideas for intervention design, and discuss the dissemination and implementation of research findings. The future research ideas presented in this commentary are based on current research findings, as well as the professional experience of the article authors. Professional experience spans occupational therapy in neurorehabilitation, clinical exercise physiology in rehabilitation, creation and implementation of stroke rehabilitation clinics, stroke and TIA research, and behavioral and implementation science.

Bridging the gap between preclinical scientists, clinical researchers, and clinicians: From animal research to clinical practice.

Collaborations amongst researchers and clinicians with complementary areas of expertise enhance knowledge for everyone and can lead to new discoveries. To facilitate these interactions, shared language and a general understanding of how colleagues in different subfields of headache and headache research approach their work are needed. This narrative review focuses on research methods applied in animal studies, human studies including clinical trials, and provides an overview of clinical practice. For animal studies, we describe concepts needed to evaluate the quality and relevance of preclinical studies. For human research, fundamental concepts of neuroimaging, quantitative sensory testing, genetic and epidemiological research methods, and clinical research methodology that are commonly used in headache research are summarized. In addition, we provide an understanding of what guides headache clinicians, and summarize the practical approach to migraine management in adults and children. It is hoped that this review facilitates further dialogue between clinicians and researchers that will help guide future research efforts and implementation of research findings into clinical practice.

Vision and mission of the new Editor-In-Chief

Vision and mission of the new Editor-In-Chief

Language gains in 4-6-year-old children with developmental language disorder and the relation with language profile, severity, multilingualism and non-verbal cognition.

Early and effective treatment for children with developmental language disorder (DLD) is important. Although a growing body of research shows the effects of interventions at the group level, clinicians observe large individual differences in language growth, and differences in outcomes across language domains. A systematic understanding of how child characteristics contribute to changes in language skills is still lacking. To assess changes in the language domains: expressive morphosyntax; receptive and expressive vocabulary; and comprehension, in children in special needs education for DLD. To explore if differences in language gains between children are related to child characteristics: language profile; severity of the disorder; being raised mono- or multilingually; and cognitive ability. We extracted data from school records of 154 children (4-6 years old) in special needs education offering a language and communication-stimulating educational environment, including speech and language therapy. Changes in language were measured by comparing the scores on standardized language tests at the beginning and the end of a school year. Next, we related language change to language profile (receptive-expressive versus expressive-only disorders), severity (initial scores), growing up mono- and multilingually, and children's reported non-verbal IQ scores. Overall, the children showed significant improvements in expressive morphosyntax, expressive vocabulary and language comprehension. Baseline scores and gains were lowest for expressive morphosyntax. Differences in language gains between children with receptive-expressive disorders and expressive-only disorders were not significant. There was more improvement in children with lower initial scores. There were no differences between mono- and multilingual children, except for expressive vocabulary. There was no evidence of a relation between non-verbal IQ scores and language growth. Children with DLD in special needs education showed gains in language performance during one school year. There was, however, little change in morphosyntactic scores, which supports previous studies concluding that poor morphosyntax is a persistent characteristic of DLD. Our results indicate that it is important to include all children with DLD in intervention: children with receptive-expressive and expressive disorders; mono- and multilingual children, and children with high, average and low non-verbal IQ scores. We did not find negative relations between these child factors and changes in language skills. What is already known on the subject Intervention studies indicate that intervention can be effective, but not for all children with DLD, and not in all language domains. Longitudinal studies on language development show stable growth patterns in children with DLD at the group level. A systematic understanding of how child characteristics contribute to changes in language skills is still lacking. What this paper adds to existing knowledge In this study, we report on the language gains of a cohort of 154 children with DLD (4-6 years old), in a special education setting for children with language disorders. Our sample includes children with receptive-expressive disorders and expressive-only disorders, and monolingual as well as multilingual children. Our results show that children's language skills improved. The co-normed tests we used revealed that the children had much lower growth in morphosyntax than in the other language domains. Language gains between children with receptive-expressive and expressive-only language disorders did not differ, children with lower initial test scores showed more improvement than children with higher initial scores, multilingual children showed more gains in expressive vocabulary than monolingual children, and there was no effect of non-verbal IQ on change in language scores. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The results suggest that catching up on language is possible for children with DLD. It is important to include all children with DLD in intervention: mono- and multilingual children; children with receptive-expressive and expressive disorders; and children with high, average and low non-verbal IQ scores. We did not find negative relations between these child factors and changes in language skills. The limited growth in morphosyntax compared with other linguistic areas warrants the attention of both practitioners and researchers, with a particular focus on the implementation of research findings in clinical practice.

Research attitudes, practice and literacy among Kenyan palliative care healthcare professionals: an observational, cross-sectional online survey

Background:While research is needed to advocate for implementation of global agendas to strengthen palliative care, healthcare professionals’ research literacy must improve to bridge the gap between evidence and practice. A resurgent focus on North-South power disparities, means attention should also focus on understanding low- and middle-income countries’ local agency to implement palliative care research agendas.Methods:An observational, cross-sectional online survey among Kenyan palliative healthcare professionals currently working at any of the palliative and hospice care organizations operational during January – December 2019, using descriptive statistics.Results:Among the 93 survey respondents, participants were mainly nurses (50.54%; n = 47). Regarding research attitudes: all agreed/strongly agreed research was important for their professional work. Over nine-tenths (91.21%; n = 83) reported having the skills to conduct research, and 91.30% (n = 84) wanted to conduct research in their clinical work. 90% (90.21%; n = 83) reported supervisory support to conduct research. A comparable proportion (90.22%; n = 83) would undertake research if they could find funding. Regarding research practice: over two-thirds (70.65%; n = 65) reported ever having had a mentor who encouraged them to do research, while approximately half (50.59%; n = 43) reported reading evidence-based journal articles about once per month and attending monthly in-house meetings on palliative care (56.79%; n = 46). Regarding research literacy: while over two-fifths of respondents described their current research literacy level as ‘none’ or ‘beginner’ (44.56%; n = 41), a comparable proportion described it as ‘intermediate’ (45.65%; n = 42), with 9 (9.78%) stating it was ‘advanced’.Conclusion:The majority of palliative healthcare professionals report having interest, skills and support at work to conduct palliative care research, with a low-to-medium level of research literacy. The current study explored palliative care staff attitudes to, experience in, and literacy with the research process, which is necessary to creating a dialogue on implementing research findings. This study also adds to the global empowerment agenda, addressing inequities in research opportunities and local capacity to own and undertake palliative care research.

The impact of GDPR on data sharing for European cancer research

The European Groundshot—addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission by Mark Lawler and colleagues,1 which addresses Europe's cancer research challenges, has outlined how collaborative research is vital to ensure rapid improvement in cancer care from early diagnosis to precise application of therapies. Data sharing ensures research robustness, adequate datasets for statistically significant results, economies of scales and cost-effective approaches through data reuse and enhancement, and ultimately expedites the validation and implementation of research findings.

Healthy Environments and Lives (HEAL): Australian research network in human health and environmental change

BackgroundThe HEAL Network aims to strengthen the Australian health system and community resilience to climate change, extreme events, and environmental degradation. This resilience is achieved by stimulating collaborative research that will improve our understanding of the interactions between climate, the natural and built environment, public health, and the benefits and trade-offs of adaptation and mitigation action aiming to reduce the health impacts of environmental change. HEAL is embedding systematic codesign processes with First Nations people on environmental change preparedness, capacity and capability building, and mitigation and adaptation solutions. MethodsHEAL is addressing capacity and capability gaps in human health, climate and environmental change, and credibility gaps in interactions between policy makers, practitioners, industry, and communities. The HEAL Network is regionally distributed and includes multiple communities of practice, comprising researchers, environmental and health practitioners, community organisations, and policy makers. On the basis of initial gap analyses and stakeholder consultations, we have established ten interdisciplinary research themes (Indigenous knowledge systems; data and decision support systems; science communication; health system resilience; bushfires and extreme events; food, soil, and water security; biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases; urban health; rural and remote health; and at-risk populations and life course solutions) and a range of research capacity and capability strengthening activities that will support investigators, local services and communities. FindingsThe HEAL Network is developing the skills needed to formulate priorities, codesign projects, and translate and implement research findings into policy and practice. New interdisciplinary collaborations emerging from HEAL have led to development of participatory action research, such as facilitating Aboriginal community-led climate adaptation plans based on traditional knowledge and environmental, climate, and health data. InterpretationHEAL identifies evidence gaps and prioritises research capacity and capability needs and local action with community-led codesign of environmental change adaptation and mitigation solutions. This network and related programme of work will lead to more effective national, regional, and local policies to protect and improve planetary health and reduce inequities within and across communities and generations. FundingThe HEAL National Research Network has been awarded funding from the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Special Initiative in Human Health and Environmental Change.

Preface

International Conference on Climate Change, Agriculture, Biodiversity, and Environtment Study (CABE 2021) was held in Tarakan, Indonesia. CABE 2021 was hosted by Biodiversity of Fishery and Marine Center LPPM UBT.The conference is organized by the Research and Community Services Center of Borneo Tarakan University, Indonesia. The primary objective of The CABE 2021 is to promote effective interaction and cooperation among scientists and technicians who are involved in agriculture research and development in the world with the view of encouraging and facilitating research activity, implementing research findings, sharing of information and publication of research results. The CABE 2021 focuses on both theory, design and applications. In addition to the technical sessions, there will be invited sessions, panel sessions and keynote addresses.At the moment, we are facing a new situation that has never happened before, the Global Pandemic caused by Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (Covid-2019). This issue has affected the lives of people globally, Including the lives of academics in education. The Covid-19 pandemic is an unprecedented phenomenon for us all. The situation is continually evolving, and we must face new challenges every day. With the appeal above, the International conference on Conference on Climate Change, Agriculture, Biodiversity, and Environtment Study has been switch into virtually mode. Originally the coference was planned in a physical conference. However, until mid-September 2021, the conditions for Covid-19 were not normal. The participants really need the publication results as an annual performance report. In this case, all participants refuse if the conference is postponed. At 23-24 December 2021, all participants were invited virtually for preparation and simulation. In the conference day, all committee were organizing the conference in virtually using zoom application from Tarakan, Kalimantan, Indonesia. The structure were similar with the physical conference as indicated in the following conference program. The keynote speakers session was cunducted in the morning and continued with parallel sessions after lunch break. In the parallel session, each participant was preset their paper for 15 minutes including questions and answers. The CABE 2021 were attended around 170 audience with 121 presenters from academicians, students, scientists, and other related professionals.List of ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, International Program Committee (IPC) are available in this Pdf.