Mr Dale Coghlan1, Jasmin Mazis2, Dr Shilapanjali Jesudason2,3,4, Dr Dharshana Sabanayagam5,6, Dr Nicole Scholes-Robertson5, Professor Jonathan Craig1,5, Professor Allison Jaure5, on behalf of the BEAT-CKD Investigators
1Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, 2Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA), South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, Australia, 3Central Northern Adelaide Renal and Transplantation Service, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia, 4School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 5Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia, 6Department of Renal and Transplantation Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Biography:
Dale is responsible for developing and coordinating a patient involvement framework within the BEAT-CKD network, ensuring the integration of perspectives and experiences of individuals living with kidney disease in all research activities. He provides administrative and operational support to project teams, overseeing the implementation and delivery of activities to achieve established milestones and deliverables.
Aim:
To describe perspectives of stakeholder organisations/networks on translating and co-producing evidence in practice and policy in kidney disease.
Background:
The translation of research evidence into practice, particularly how this is co-produced with patients and caregivers (consumers), remains inconsistent and unclear. Despite the existence of numerous research translation frameworks, their effectiveness in the nephrology field is not well established. This study explored how stakeholder organisations involved in kidney health policy and practice approach evidence translation, with an emphasis on research co-produced with consumers.
Methods:
We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who were purposively selected from 15 organizations and research networks across Australia and New Zealand. Interviews explored pathways for evidence translation, challenges, consumer co-production, and strategies for effective partnerships. Transcripts were analysed thematically.
Results:
Seventeen participants were interviewed across clinical, policy, and advocacy sectors including one consumer representative. Four themes were identified: ‘Embedding consumer partnership’ emphasized critical roles of involving patients and caregivers within evidence translation; ‘Resource constraints and system inertia’ highlighted barriers such as limited time, funding, expertise, and resistance to change; ‘Facilitators for evidence translation’ included the strategic use of technology (i.e. podcasts/apps/videos) and simplification of medical language; and ‘Strengthening research integration’ described coordinated efforts to reduce fragmentation and align siloed practices through collaborative, mutually beneficial partnerships.
Conclusion:
Co-production is recognized as a key element for enhancing the relevance and impact of nephrology research, yet its integration into evidence translation processes remains inconsistent. Enablers included simplified communication, technology use, and inter-organisational collaboration. Barriers included resource constraints, fragmentation, and navigating multiple stakeholder interests. Strengthening consumer involvement, building capacity, and supporting ongoing evaluation are key to translating co-produced evidence into policy and practice.