A mixed-methods approach to understanding partnership experiences and outcomes of projects from an integrated knowledge translation funding model in rehabilitation

Abstract

Background Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) can optimize the uptake of research evidence into clinical practice by incorporating knowledge users as equal partners in the entire research process. Although several studies have investigated stakeholder involvement in research, the literature on partnerships between researchers and clinicians in rehabilitation and their impact on clinical practice is scarce. This study described the individual research projects, the outcomes of these projects on clinical practice and the partnership experiences of an initiative that funds IKT projects co-led by a rehabilitation clinician and a researcher. Methods This was a sequential explanatory mixed methods study where quantitative data (document reviews and surveys) informed the qualitative phase (focus groups with researchers and interviews with clinicians). Descriptive analysis was completed for the quantitative data and thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data. Results 53 projects were classified within multiple steps of the KTA framework. Descriptive information on the projects and outcomes were obtained through the survey for 37 of the 53 funded projects (70%). Half of the respondents ( n = 18) were very satisfied or satisfied with their project’s impact. Only two (6%) projects reported having measured sustainability of their projects and four (11%) measured long-term impact. A focus group with six researchers and individual interviews with nine clinicians highlighted the benefits (e.g. acquired collaborative skills, stronger networks between clinicians and academia) and challenges (e.g. measuring KT outcomes, lack of planning for sustainability, barriers related to clinician involvement in research) of participating in this initiative. Considerations when partnering on IKT projects included: the importance of having a supportive organization culture and physical proximity between collaborators, sharing motives for participating, leveraging everyone’s expertise, grounding projects in KT models, discussing feasibility of projects on a restricted timeline, and incorporating the necessary knowledge users. Clinicians discussed the main outputs (scientific contribution, training and development, increased awareness of best practice, step in a larger effort) as project outcomes, but highlighted the complexity of measuring outcomes on clinical practice. Conclusion The study provides a portrait of an IKT funding model, sheds light on past IKT projects’ strengths and weaknesses and provides strategies for promoting positive partnership experiences between researchers and rehabilitation clinicians. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4061-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exploring clinicians’ experiences and perceptions of end-user roles in knowledge development: a qualitative study

“…Further, clinicians also expressed that they did not fully understand how their participation would influence the final knowledge tool. A recent mixed-methods study by Roberge-Dao et al (2019), aimed to understand the experiences of partnerships between researchers and rehabilitation clinicians participating in iKT projects within a university in Quebec, Canada [ 23 ]. This study reviewed 53 rehabilitation-oriented iKT projects aiming to translate knowledge to improve patient health outcomes and quality of care.…”

“…Therefore, work is needed to guide how to incorporate the contributions of end-users into the research comprehensively [ 12 , 14 – 17 ]. Specifically, there is a need to explore the nature of the collaboration between researchers and end-users to help support end-user engagement, particularly with respect to rehabilitative healthcare [ 18 – 23 ]. Exploring end-user experiences and perspectives in participating in knowledge development may improve the quality of the methodology and optimize the research outcomes such as utilization and relevance [ 1 , 2 , 4 , 12 , 23 ].…”

Demand sensing and digital tracking for maternal child health (MCH) in Uganda: a pilot study for ‘E+TRA Health’

“…IKT is used specifically in public health intervention research [36] in Canada, with the assumption that it can increase the uptake of research evidence into policy and practice as the collaboration process between researchers and practitioners will generate knowledge that is relevant to practitioners [32,37,38]. IKT was established by the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) and has evolved from traditional 'Knowledge Translation' approaches which goes beyond the reductionist view of knowledge translation that typically involves 'translating' research findings at the end-of-the-grant research by filling the gap with 'translated products for dissemination'; to co-producing knowledge for 'actionable evidence'.…”

What is “shared” in shared decision‐making? Philosophical perspectives, epistemic justice, and implications for health professions education

“…As an occupational therapist and rehabilitation scientist (A.T., first author), my research focus on how clinical experience and expertise impact clinicians' use of research evidence has led me to explore how clinical decision‐making occurs in complex systems of care, and to identify the factors that support or inhibit clinicians' use of scientific evidence in practice . Two themes continue to arise in conversations with health care professionals that relate to their experience of both testimonial and hermeneutic epistemic injustice: (a) feelings of powerlessness and (b) a tension between meeting performance indicators and working with patients as unique individuals, with different aspirations, timelines, and priorities.…”