Table 2 Categories of barriers and facilitators to the uptake of, engagement in and support for D&I research in academia

Individual

1. Insufficient D&I training/courses

▪ Lack of knowledge, understanding and skills to conduct D&I research

2. Individual perceptions of scientific approaches

▪ Perceived superiority of linear models of translation and preference for efficacy studies

▪ Perceived lack of ‘outcomes’ from D&I research; large ‘trade off’ and ‘lack of return on investment’

3. Development and maintenance of stakeholder relationships

▪ Funding and time required, and difficulties obtaining sufficient support/resources to conduct D&I research

4. Challenges of real-world research methodologies

▪ Perceptions D&I is ‘messy’, difficult to design, interpret and write-up

▪ Perceived ‘intimidating’ field to enter into unskilled

1. Increased opportunities for D&I in academia, research and teaching

▪ Development of certified training/courses nationally, embedding D&I science within HDR teaching/training

2. Shifting cultural academic mindset and types of research

▪ Managing academic expectations of D&I research, including increased acceptance of D&I high quality consensus methodologies

3. Partnership network developed a priori and over time

▪ Maintenance of a ‘dynamic’ partner network across entire translation system; enhances flexibility during relationship/partner change

4. Leveraging off academic institution’s mission statement/objectives

▪ Strategically aligning research and reinforcing academics’ responsibility for translation to increase perceived value

5. Collective advocacy to change the academic system

▪ Academics collectively challenge journal ‘norms’ and culture of public health research to embrace a wider perspective of real-world impact

Organisational

1. Lack of expertise in D&I science in academic institutions

▪ Lack of trained D&I scientists limits capacity building in D&I

2. Embedded culture not conducive to translational research

▪ Overemphasis on outcome-orientated metrics, top down approach of ‘pushing’ interventions onto communities

▪ Lack of understanding (internal and external) of the challenges conducting D&I research, underlying theory, validated methodology and measures; linked to perceived lack of value

3. ECR training (e.g., PhD programs) doesn’t facilitate D&I research

▪ Lack of inclusion of D&I in HDR teaching/training; ECRs have minimal skills/knowledge of translation, reinforced via entrenched organisational practices

▪ Time required for stakeholder engagement exceeds PhD time/funding; difficult to build ECR capacity in D&I

1. Increase employment/opportunities for D&I scientists

▪ Targeted recruitment of trained D&I scientists, development of PhD programs dedicated to D&I science

2. Support for D&I involvement at different career stages

▪ Incentivise and enable academic engagement in D&I science according to career stage demands, expectations and requirements

3. Shift organisational cultural towards research translation

▪ Create organisational culture that values D&I and co-production of evidence with stakeholders

4. Collaborative knowledge sharing across institutions

▪ Encourage and facilitate (e.g., resources/time) collaborations locally with stakeholders and across academic institutions

System

1. Funding priorities and overemphasis on ‘innovation’

▪ Short-term vision and priorities of funders/academic system not conducive to D&I science; reinforces perceived lack of value and priority of D&I and perceptions ‘less innovative’

2. Demands for research impact vs. changes in funding environment

▪ Increased academic pressure for demonstrable public health impact; funding agencies slow to support types of research required and lack of D&I expertise/understanding on funding review panels

3. Journal publishing criteria non-conducive to D&I research

▪ Journal criterions counteractive to real-world/D&I research, less exposure of D&I research in major journals; creates uncertainty in publishing and thus disincentive for ECRs/academics

4. Outcome- and output-orientated academic performance structure

▪ Reinforces perceived ‘un-appeal’ of D&I; dis-incentivises academics

1. Funding and outcome metrics prioritising stakeholder involvement

▪ Funding schemes dedicated to co-production/participatory approaches

▪ System incentives for collaborative working across organisations

2. Research translation embedded in academic performance metrics

▪ Part of internal (e.g., University) and external (e.g., national assessments) reporting/assessment criteria

3. Restructure of academic system via Government leadership

▪ Top-down pressure to enact system change and leverage country-wide resources for D&I; ‘upstream’ academic drive for change ‘piecemeal’

4. Increase presence of D&I at national/international conferences

▪ Via interest groups and networks of expertise within and associated with major conferences/societies

5. Journals dedicated to publishing D&I research

▪ Increase journals/broadening selection criteria to facilitate and incentivise publishing of D&I research