Dataset Information

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Integrated knowledge translation refers to researcher and research user partnerships to co-generate and implement knowledge. This type of partnership may be critical to success in increasing knowledge use and impact, but the conceptualisation of its initiation has not been fully developed. Initiating this type of partnership has proven to be challenging but crucial to its success. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-narrative review of partnership initiation concepts, processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes in the disciplines of healthcare and social sciences where examples of researcher and research user partnerships were found. METHODS:Seven research traditions were identified. Three were in the discipline of social sciences (including psychology, education and business) and five were in the discipline of healthcare (including medicine, nursing, public health, health services research). Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ABI Inform, ERIC, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library on June 9, 2017. Fifty titles and abstracts were screened in triplicate; data were extracted from three records in duplicate. Narratives comprised of study characteristics and conceptual and empirical findings across traditions were tabulated, summarised and compared. RESULTS:A total of 7779 unique results were identified and 17 reviews published from 1998 to 2017 were eligible. All reviews identified a partnership initiation phase referred to as 'early' or 'developmental', or more vaguely as 'fuzzy', across six traditions - integrated knowledge translation, action research, stakeholder engagement, knowledge transfer, team initiation and shared mental models. The partnership initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes were common to multiple narratives and summarised in a Partnership Initiation Conceptual Framework. Our review revealed limited use or generation of theory in most included reviews, and little empirical evidence testing the links between partnership initiation processes, enablers or barriers, and outcomes for the purpose of describing successful researcher and research user partnership initiation. CONCLUSIONS:Narratives across multiple research traditions revealed similar integrated knowledge translation initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes, which were captured in a conceptual framework that can be employed by researchers and research users to study and launch partnerships. While partnership initiation was recognised, it remains vaguely conceptualised despite lengthy research in several fields of study. Ongoing research of partnership initiation is needed to identify or generate relevant theory, and to empirically establish outcomes and the determinants of those outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Zych MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7029453 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review.

Zych Maria Maddalena MM Berta Whitney B WB Gagliardi Anna R AR

Health research policy and systems 20200218 1

<h4>Background</h4>Integrated knowledge translation refers to researcher and research user partnerships to co-generate and implement knowledge. This type of partnership may be critical to success in increasing knowledge use and impact, but the conceptualisation of its initiation has not been fully developed. Initiating this type of partnership has proven to be challenging but crucial to its success. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-narrative review of partnership initiation concep ...[more]

PMID: 32070367

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOne potential source of bias in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is researcher allegiance (RA). The operationalisation of RA differs strongly across studies, and there is not a generally accepted method of operationalising or measuring it. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to how RA affects the outcomes of trials and if it results in better outcomes for a preferred intervention. The aim of this project is to develop and validate a scale that accurately identifies RA, contribute to the understanding of the impact that RA has in a research setting and to make recommendations for addressing RA in practice.Methods and analysisA scale will first be developed and validated to measure RA in psychotherapy trials. The scale will be validated by surveying authors of psychotherapy trials to assess their opinions, beliefs and preferences of psychotherapy interventions. Furthermore, the scale will be validated for use outside the field of psychotherapy. The validated checklist will then be used to examine two potential mechanisms of how RA may affect outcomes of interventions: publication bias (by assessing grants) and risk of bias (RoB). Finally, recommendations will be developed, and a feasibility study will be conducted at a national mental health agency in The Netherlands. Main analyses comprise inter-rater reliability of checklist items, correlations to examine the relationship between checklist items and author survey (convergent validity) as well as checklist items and trial outcomes and multivariate meta-regression techniques to assess potential mechanisms of how allegiance affects trial outcomes (publication bias and RoB).Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and approved by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board (VCWE) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Study result and advancements will also be published on the Open Science Framework. Furthermore, main findings will be disseminated through articles in international peer-reviewed open access journals. Results and recommendations will be communicated to the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration and other funding agencies.

Project description:PurposeThe relationship between social networks and health and wellbeing is increasingly demonstrated in vulnerable adult populations. This relationship for vulnerable children and young people has not hitherto been systematically reviewed. This narrative synthesis aims to consolidate research to provide a foundational basis for future health-related social network research and interventions for children and young people.MethodsThis mixed methods systematic review synthesises research investigating whole, egocentric social networks of 32 vulnerable child groups with a mean age below 18. There were no setting, language or date restrictions. The quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Of 6360 search results, 49 were included for narrative synthesis.ResultsThe majority of pertinent research originates from the USA; the most frequently investigated vulnerabilities were minority ethnic status, homelessness and the presence of special educational needs. Research aims and methodologies varied significantly between studies. Key findings included (i) vulnerable (excluding minority ethnic) children and young people have impoverished networks (ii) access to networks is a protective factor against negative outcomes (iii) social ties, primarily immediate family, provide access to personal resources and (iv) network ties are to a degree substitutable.ConclusionsNetworks are associated with wellbeing and vulnerable children and young people commonly have impoverished networks, excluding cases where vulnerability classification relates to minority ethnic status. Network embeddedness is associated with positive outcomes, particularly for homeless children. Family are typically primary providers of support, but ties are substitutable when networks are restricted. Egocentric social network research is currently limited for vulnerable child populations. Further research could inform interventions that harness networks to improve health, wellbeing and functional outcomes for these child groups.

Project description:BackgroundThere are many described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified "trust" as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discusses trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR, and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review to systematically review and synthesize the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised, and measured in CBPR and social networks.MethodsThis review follows the guidance and framework of Peters et al. which is underpinned by the widely used framework of Levac and colleagues. Levac and colleagues provided enhancements to the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. We explored several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PsychINFO. A search strategy was identified and agreed upon by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract, then by full-text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer arbitrated discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. A thematic analysis was then conducted to identify relevant themes and sub-themes.ResultsBased on the 26 extracted references, several key themes and sub-themes were identified which highlighted the complexity and multidimensionality of trust as a concept. Our analysis revealed an additional emergent category that highlighted another important dimension of trust-outcomes pertaining to trust. Further, variation within how the studies conceptualised, operationalised, and measured trust was illuminated. Finally, the multidimensionality of trust provided important insight into how trust operates as a context, mechanism, and outcome.ConclusionsFindings provide support for future research to incorporate trust as a lens to explore the social-relational aspects of partnerships and the scope to develop interventions to support trust in partnerships.

Project description:The engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process. We describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process. We conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data. Using results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided. This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably. The BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity. The development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionA participatory approach to co-creating new knowledge in health research has gained significant momentum in recent decades. This is founded on the described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified 'trust' as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discuss trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review protocol to systematically review and synthesise the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised and measured in CBPR and social networks.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows guidelines from Levac et al (Scoping studies: advancing themethodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69), which follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. This scoping review explores several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and PsychINFO. Grey literature such as theses/dissertations and reports will be included. A search strategy was identified and agreed on by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract, then by full text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. We plan to incorporate a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics is not required for this review specifically. It is a component of a larger study that received ethical approval from the University of Limerick research ethics committee (#2018_05_12_EHS). Translation of results to key domains is integrated through active collaboration of stakeholders from community, health services and academic sectors. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences, and peer review publications targeting public and patient involvement in health research.

Project description:BackgroundResearch partnership approaches, in which researchers and stakeholders work together collaboratively on a research project, are an important component of research, knowledge translation, and implementation. Despite their growing use, a comprehensive understanding of the principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts of different types of research partnerships is lacking. Generating high-quality evidence in this area is challenging due to the breadth and diversity of relevant literature. We established a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to identify and synthesize the partnership literature and better understand the evidence base. This review protocol outlines an innovative approach to locating, reviewing, and synthesizing the literature on research partnerships.MethodsFive reviews pertaining to research partnerships are proposed. The Coordinated Multicenter Team developed a consensus-driven conceptual framework to guide the reviews. First, a review of reviews will comparatively describe and synthesize key domains (principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts) for different research partnership approaches, within and beyond health (e.g., integrated knowledge translation, participatory action research). After identifying commonly used search terminology, three complementary scoping reviews will describe and synthesize these domains in the health research partnership literature. Finally, an umbrella review will amalgamate and reflect on the collective findings and identify research gaps and future directions. We will develop a collaborative review methodology, comprising search strategy efficiencies, terminology standardization, and the division of screening, extraction, and synthesis to optimize feasibility and literature capture. A series of synthesis and scoping manuscripts will emerge from this Coordinated Multicenter Team approach.DiscussionComprehensively describing and differentiating research partnership terminology and its domains will address well-documented gaps in the literature. These efforts will contribute to and improve the quality, conduct, and reporting of research partnership literature. The collaborative review methodology will help identify and establish common terms, leverage efficiencies (e.g., expertise, experience, search and protocol design, resources) and optimize research feasibility and quality. Our approach allows for enhanced scope and inclusivity of all research user groups and domains, thereby contributing uniquely to the literature. This multicenter, efficiency and quality-focused approach may serve to inspire researchers across the globe in addressing similar domain challenges, as exist in this rapidly expanding field.

Project description:Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles.We identified reporting bias in 40 indications comprising around 50 different pharmacological, surgical (e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy), diagnostic (e.g. ultrasound), and preventive (e.g. cancer vaccines) interventions. Regarding pharmacological interventions, cases of reporting bias were, for example, identified in the treatment of the following conditions: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, pain, migraine, cardiovascular disease, gastric ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, urinary incontinence, atopic dermatitis, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypercholesterolaemia, thyroid disorders, menopausal symptoms, various types of cancer (e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma), various types of infections (e.g. HIV, influenza and Hepatitis B), and acute trauma. Many cases involved the withholding of study data by manufacturers and regulatory agencies or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress publication. The ascertained effects of reporting bias included the overestimation of efficacy and the underestimation of safety risks of interventions.In conclusion, reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to study data via results databases need to be introduced on a worldwide scale. This will allow for an independent review of research data, help fulfil ethical obligations towards patients, and ensure a basis for fully-informed decision making in the health care system.

Dataset Information

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review.

Publications

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets