Dataset Information

A scoping review of co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication.

ABSTRACT: Co-production is rapidly gaining purchase as an approach to making research matter more to diverse audiences. There exists a wealth of information about co-production in areas such as public administration and sustainability science, but comparatively little within the specific area of research communication. In particular, little is known about the harnessing the potential of researchers and journalists engaging in co-production to generate evidence-based knowledge, foster an informed public, and achieve societal impacts. This review aimed to address that gap in the knowledge base by systematically mapping the theoretical and empirical literature related to co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication. Given the paucity of study in this area, we advanced this aim by synthesizing the extant literature that has explored the more general concept of interactions between researchers and journalists. Following a scoping review methodology, a total of 60 articles were selected for inclusion in this review. We analyzed the included articles following a systematic method of using a data extraction framework to synthesize and interpret contextual (country of the study or author [s], publication type, sector, and methods) and thematic (objectives, theoretical framework, findings) information. Three cross-cutting themes were identified that help to elucidate important considerations for researchers and journalists engaged in or considering engaging in co-production in research communication: (a) the roles of researchers and journalists; (b) the pitfalls and promises of co-production; and (c) the barriers and facilitators of co-production. Following an in-depth examination of these themes, we conclude with a synopsis of the literature along with identifying two major topics for progressing current knowledge and practice.

SUBMITTER: MacGregor S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7484548 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A scoping review of co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication.

MacGregor Stephen S Cooper Amanda A Coombs Andrew A DeLuca Christopher C

Heliyon 20200904 9

Co-production is rapidly gaining purchase as an approach to making research matter more to diverse audiences. There exists a wealth of information about co-production in areas such as public administration and sustainability science, but comparatively little within the specific area of research communication. In particular, little is known about the harnessing the potential of researchers and journalists engaging in co-production to generate evidence-based knowledge, foster an informed public, a ...[more]

PMID: 32954030

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAddressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.MethodsWe searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.ConclusionsThere are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Project description:BackgroundHealth researchers are increasingly using social media in a professional capacity, and the applications of social media for health researchers are vast. However, there is currently no published evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers use social media professionally, and uncertainty remains as to how best to harness its potential.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore how social media is used by health researchers professionally, as reported in the literature.MethodsThe scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al was used. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of health research and social media were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases, with no limitations applied. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at full text by two reviewers. One reviewer extracted data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence.ResultsA total of 8359 articles were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 719 were also assessed at full text for eligibility. The 414 articles identified for inclusion were published in 278 different journals. Studies originated from 31 different countries, with the most prevalent being the United States (52.7% [218/414]). The health discipline of the first authors varied, with medicine (33.3% [138/414]) being the most common. A third of the articles covered health generally, with 61 health-specific topics. Papers used a range of social media platforms (mean 1.33 [SD 0.7]). A quarter of the articles screened reported on social media use for participant recruitment (25.1% [104/414]), followed by practical ways to use social media (15.5% [64/414]), and use of social media for content analysis research (13.3% [55/414]). Articles were categorized as celebratory (ie, opportunities for engagement, 72.2% [299/414]), contingent (ie, opportunities and possible limitations, 22.7% [94/414]) and concerned (ie, potentially harmful, 5.1% [21/414]).ConclusionsHealth researchers are increasingly publishing on their use of social media for a range of professional purposes. Although most of the sentiment around the use of social media in health research was celebratory, the uses of social media varied widely. Future research is needed to support health researchers to optimize their social media use.

Project description:Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is a Canadian initiative for health research that refers to research processes informed by full and active patient involvement in all aspects of the research. Ideally, POR results in a wide dissemination of the research findings and the uptake of such findings in both clinical practice and health policy. The Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) identifies four stakeholder groups that are involved in POR who are envisioned to take on a collaborative role in enacting this approach to research. Those stakeholder groups are patients, researchers, health care providers and healthcare decision-makers. To achieve collaboration among stakeholders in POR, tools, resources, education/training and capacity building are required for each stakeholder group engaged in this work. Therefore, this review focuses on understanding and articulating competencies needed by participants to engage in POR. The aim is to summarize existing knowledge on discrete POR competencies for the four stakeholder groups; to support collaboration among them for uptake and strengthening of POR; and to inform policy, education and future research. Accordingly, our research question is 'What are the POR core competencies needed by patients, researchers, healthcare providers, and decision-makers?' The main objectives are to (1) systematically explore the academic and grey literature on competencies needed for these stakeholder groups to engage in POR; (2) map the eligible publications and research gaps in this area; (3) gain knowledge to support collaboration among stakeholders; and (4) provide recommendations for further research to use competencies that emerge in developing stakeholder groups' readiness to conduct POR.We will use a methodologically rigorous scoping review approach including formulation of the research question and development of the protocol; screening and identification of the literature; selection of relevant studies; data extraction; and collation, summary and report of the results. Our eligibility criteria include elements of population (patients, researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers); concept (competencies: knowledge, skills, attitudes; and POR); context (level of involvement in research, settings, funding sources); study design (sample, stakeholder group, methodology, grey literature, theoretical framework); outcomes (primary: relevant to decision-making/policy and practice; and secondary: relevant to education and research); language (English, French); and timing (1990-2017). Registration with PROSPERO is not eligible for scoping reviews; so, it has not been registered.Research on core competencies required to enact POR is in its infancy. In this review, we can articulate what is known and thought about competencies (knowledge, skills and attitudes) needed by individuals on POR research teams and ultimately provide knowledge that could impact research, practice, education and policy. Identification of competencies can contribute to design of healthcare professionals' basic and ongoing educational programmes, patient training in research, and professional development activities for health care providers and decision-makers. In addition, knowledge of core competencies can permit individuals to evaluate their own readiness to enter POR research teams.

Project description:Background: Research on disparities in traumatic injury has not been well characterized, limiting understanding of gaps in research and development of successful interventions. We conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize research on disparities in intentional and unintentional traumatic injuries. Methods: The review was guided by PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL and systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 were searched. Eligible articles were peer reviewed; conducted in the United States; and reported on clearly defined physical trauma and disparity, defined by Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus criteria. One reviewer assessed article titles and a second reviewer validated the inclusion with a random sample. Abstract and full-text review by two reviewers determined final inclusion. Results: Of 7382 unique articles screened, 653 articles were included; inter-rater agreement was high (K=0.995). Studies reported on disparities in the acute hospital setting (104) or postacute/rehabilitation (86), with fewer focused on prevention (57) and policy development (6). Research methods used were quantitative (593) with 25 intervention studies, qualitative (45), qualitative/quantitative (7), and community-based participatory research (8). Age ranges of included studies were all ages (124), adults (318), pediatric/youth/adolescents (172), and older adults (40). Racial disparities were most commonly measured (439 studies); 38 created a white/nonwhite binary. Other commonly measured disparities were place of residence (122), insurance (111 studies), gender (89), age (75), and socioeconomic status measures (61). Disparities were noted in all of the categories. Studies commonly aggregated all types of traumatic injuries (129) or all types of violence (105). Conclusions: The extant injury literature lacks research on prevention and policy to address disparities. Many studies aggregated types of trauma and patient groups, preventing an understanding of distinctions between groups and potential interventions. Intervention and community-based research strategies were limited. Future research can better specify measurement of understudied equity categories, trauma types and intent, and racial groups.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The optimisation of health science communication (HSC) between researchers and the public is crucial. In the last decade, the rise of the digital and social media ecosystem allowed for the disintermediation of HSC. Disintermediation refers to the public's direct access to information from researchers about health science-related topics through the digital and social media ecosystem, a process that would otherwise require a human mediator, such as a journalist. Therefore, the primary aim of this scoping review is to describe the nature and the extent of the literature regarding HSC strategies involving disintermediation used by researchers with the public in the digital and social media ecosystem. The secondary aim is to describe the HSC strategies used by researchers, and the communication channels associated with these strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology and perform a systematic search of six bibliographical databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, IBSS, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science), four trial registries and relevant sources of grey literature. Relevant journals and reference lists of included records will be hand-searched. Data will be managed using the EndNote software and the Rayyan web application. Two review team members will perform independently the screening process as well as the full-text assessment of included records. Descriptive data will be synthesised in a tabular format. Data regarding the nature and the extent of the literature, the HSC strategies and the associated communication channels will be presented narratively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review does not require institutional review board approval as we will use only collected and published data. Results will allow the mapping of the literature about HSC between researchers and the public in the digital and social media ecosystem, and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Dataset Information

A scoping review of co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication.

Publications

A scoping review of co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure