Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: Australia

✪ Towards a decolonising implementation science: principles from Indigenous leadership

Authors:

Christopher G Kemp, Lauren White, Emily E HaroZ & Prof Donald Warne

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: December 2026

Read the full text in the open access journal Lancet Global Health

Abstract:

Summary

Implementation science is a diverse and evolving field that draws on multiple epistemologies and methods. However, the dominant foundations of implementation science remain settler colonial, biomedical, and positivist. In Indigenous and other marginalised settings, these foundations can result in poor epistemological, ethical, and practical fit. We argue that a paradigm shift that is grounded in Indigenous values, sovereignty, relationality, and epistemologies is needed. We propose seven guiding principles for a decolonising implementation science. Drawing from emerging scholarship and innovative Indigenous-led frameworks from the USA, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Australia, these principles centre sovereignty, strengths-based approaches, and relational accountability. These principles also offer a roadmap to redefine rigour, expand what counts as evidence, and ensure genuine community control over the research process. Although born from Indigenous experience, these principles provide a framework for transforming implementation science to be more just, equitable, and effective for marginalised communities globally.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Protocol for the Australian Type 1 Diabetes National Screening Pilot: Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of three general population screening models in children

Authors:

Kirstine J. Bell, Shannon Brodie, Jennifer J. Couper, Peter Colman, Elizabeth Davis, Gary Deed, William Hagopian, Aveni Haynes, Christel Hendrieckx, Amanda Henry, Adrienne Gordon, Kirsten Howard, Tony Huynh, Bernadette Kerr, Kara Mikler, Natasha Nassar, Sarah Norris, Richard Oram, Dorota Pawlak, Antonia Shand, Richard O. Sinnott, Bethany Wadling, John M. Wentworth, Maria E. Craig & the Type 1 Diabetes National Screening Pilot Study Group

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: August 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Diabetes Medicine

Abstract:

Aim

One third of Australian children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes present with life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at diagnosis. Screening for early-stage, presymptomatic type 1 diabetes, with ongoing follow-up, can substantially reduce this risk (<5% risk). Several screening models are being trialled internationally, without consensus on the optimal approach. This pilot study aims to assess three models for a routine, population-wide screening programme in Australia.

Methods

An implementation science-guided pilot study to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and costs of three screening models in children will be conducted between July 2022 and June 2024. These models are as follows: (1) Genetic risk-stratified screening using newborn heel prick dried bloodspots, followed by autoantibody testing from 11 months of age; (2) genetic risk-stratified screening of infant (6–12 months) saliva followed by autoantibody testing from 10 months of age; and (3) autoantibody screening using capillary dried bloodspots collected from children aged 2, 6 or 10 years. Cohorts for each model will be recruited from targeted geographic areas across Australia involving ≥2 states per cohort, with a recruitment target of up to 3000 children per cohort (total up to 9000 children). The primary outcome is screening uptake for each cohort. Secondary outcomes include programme feasibility, costs, parental anxiety, risk perception, satisfaction, well-being and quality of life, and health professional attitudes and satisfaction.

Conclusions

This pilot is the first direct comparison of three screening implementation models for general population screening. Findings will provide evidence to inform a potential national screening programme for Australian children.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Implementation Science for HIV Prevention and Treatment in Indigenous Communities: a Systematic Review and Commentary

Authors:

Christopher G. Kemp (Ngāi Tahu), Abagail J. Edwards, Lauren White (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma), Gauri Kore, Pamela Jumper Thurman (Cherokee), Tommi Gaines (Navajo, Hopi), Paula Toko King (Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whātua, Waikato Tainui, Ngāti Maniapoto), Marama Cole (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou) & E. Roberto Orellana (Maya)

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: August 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Current HIV/AIDS Reports

Abstract:

Purpose of Review

We systematically reviewed implementation research conducted in Indigenous communities in the Americas and the Pacific that focused on improving delivery of HIV preventive or treatment services. We highlight strengths and opportunities in the literature and outline principles for Indigenous-led, HIV-related implementation science.

Recent Findings

We identified 31 studies, revealing a consistent emphasis on cultural tailoring of services to Indigenous communities. Common barriers to implementation included stigma, geographic limitations, confidentiality concerns, language barriers, and mistrust. Community involvement in intervention development and delivery emerged as a key facilitator, and nearly half of the studies used community-based participatory research methods. While behavioral HIV prevention, especially among Indigenous youth, was a major focus, there was limited research on biomedical HIV prevention and treatment. No randomized implementation trials were identified.

Summary

The findings underscore the importance of community engagement, the need for interventions developed within Indigenous communities rather than merely adapted, and the value of addressing the social determinants of implementation success. Aligned to these principles, an indigenized implementation science could enhance the acceptability and reach of critical HIV preventive and treatment services in Indigenous communities while also honoring their knowledge, wisdom, and strength.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**