How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks

Partnered health research in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of perceptions among researchers and knowledge users involved in funded projects between 2011 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Engaging knowledge users in health research is accelerating in Canada. Our objective was to examine perceptions of partnered health research among individuals involved in funded Canadian partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019.

METHODS

We invited 2155 recipients of 1153 funded projects to answer a questionnaire probing project characteristics and perceptions of partnered health research. We described and compared perceived effects of involving knowledge users in the project, team cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation for working in partnership between two categories of respondents: project role [nominated principal investigators (NPIs), other researchers and knowledge users] and gender.

FINDINGS

We analysed data from 589 respondents (42% NPIs, 40% other researchers and 18% knowledge users; 56% women). Among the perceived effects variables, the proportion of ratings of significant influence of involving knowledge users in the project ranged between 12% and 63%. Cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation variables ranged between 58% and 97% agreement. There were no significant differences between respondent groups for most variables. NPIs and women rated the overall influence of involving knowledge users as significant more than other respondent groups (p < 0.001). NPIs also reported higher agreement with feeling sufficiently included in team activities, pressure to engage and partnerships enabling personal goals (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents held positive perceptions of working in partnership, although ratings of perceived effects indicated limited effects of involving knowledge users in specific research components and on project outcomes. Continued analysis of project outcomes may identify specific contexts and partnership characteristics associated with greater impact.

Protocol: Assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development: A systematic review

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest-holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?

Accelerating knowledge translation to improve cardiovascular outcomes and health services: opportunities for bridging science and clinical practice

Knowledge translation (KT) is the exchange between knowledge producers and users to understand, synthesize, share, and apply evidence to accelerate the benefits of research to improve health and health systems. Knowledge translation practice (activities/strategies to move evidence into practice) and KT science (study of the methodology and approaches to promote the uptake of research) benefit from the use of conceptual thinking, the meaningful inclusion of patients, and the application of intersectionality. In spite of multiple barriers, there are opportunities to develop strong partnerships and evidence to drive an impactful research agenda and increase the uptake of cardiovascular research.

Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies

Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.

Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Involving research users in collaborative research approaches may increase the relevance and utility of research findings. Our primary objectives were to (i) identify and describe characteristics of Canadian federally and provincially funded health research projects that included research users and were funded between 2011 and 2019; (ii) explore changes over time; and (iii) compare characteristics between funder required and optional partnerships.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were projects that included research users. We analyzed publicly available project variables, and coded field and type of research using established classification systems. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and compared variables across three funding year blocks and partnership requirement status.

RESULTS

We identified 1153 partnered health research projects, representing 137 fields of research and 37 types of research categories. Most projects included a required partnership (80%) and fell into health and social care services research (66%). Project length and funding amount increased from average of 24.8 months and $266 248 CAD in 2011-2013 to 31.6 months and $438 766 CAD in 2017-2019. There were significantly fewer required partnerships in 2017-2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2011 and 2019 Canadian federally and provincially funded partnered health research reflected primarily care services research across many fields. The observed breadth suggests that partnered health research approaches are applicable in many fields of research. Additional work to support partnered research across all types of health research (especially biomedical research) is warranted. The administration of larger grants that are funded for longer time periods may address previously identified concerns among research teams engaging in partnered research but may mean that fewer teams receive funding and risk delaying responding to time-sensitive data needs for users. Our process and findings can be used as a starting point for international comparison.

Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.

RESULTS

From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.