Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge

Abstract

BackgroundBetter use of research evidence (one form of “knowledge”) in health systems requires partnerships between researchers and those who contend with the real-world needs and constraints of health systems. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and integrated knowledge translation (IKT) are research approaches that emphasize the importance of creating partnerships between researchers and the people for whom the research is ultimately meant to be of use (“knowledge users”). There exist poor understandings of the ways in which these approaches converge and diverge. Better understanding of the similarities and differences between CBPR and IKT will enable researchers to use these approaches appropriately and to leverage best practices and knowledge from each. The co-creation of knowledge conveys promise of significant social impacts, and further understandings of how to engage and involve knowledge users in research are needed.Main textWe examine the histories and traditions of CBPR and IKT, as well as their points of convergence and divergence. We critically evaluate the ways in which both have the potential to contribute to the development and integration of knowledge in health systems. As distinct research traditions, the underlying drivers and rationale for CBPR and IKT have similarities and differences across the areas of motivation, social location, and ethics; nevertheless, the practices of CBPR and IKT converge upon a common aim: the co-creation of knowledge that is the result of knowledge user and researcher expertise. We argue that while CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute evidence to implementation science and practices for collaborative research, clarity for the purpose of the research—social change or application—is a critical feature in the selection of an appropriate collaborative approach to build knowledge.ConclusionCBPR and IKT bring distinct strengths to a common aim: to foster democratic processes in the co-creation of knowledge. As research approaches, they create opportunities to challenge assumptions about for whom, how, and what is defined as knowledge, and to develop and integrate research findings into health systems. When used appropriately, CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute to and advance implementation science about the conduct of collaborative health systems research.

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

“…Other partnership studies have also concluded that there are no dominant theories to guide partnership initiation [46,47], as was found in this review. Another review, that examined the histories and traditions of community-based participatory research and IKT, also found that co-creation of knowledge is referred to with different labels [16]. In addition, similar to other studies, our review failed to identify outcomes definitively associated with partnership initiation processes, enablers or barriers, although several hypothetical outcomes were proposed [9].…”

“…In other words, the benefits of researcher and research user partnerships may not be realised if flourishing partnerships are not established at the outset. While previous reviews [9] and concept analyses [10,11,16,17] of researcher and research user partnerships have been published, none of those specifically assessed partnership initiation in depth. Bush et al [17] concluded that co-creation partnerships, that is, partnerships to co-create knowledge, initiated by research user organisations appear to have greater beneficial outcomes than consultative type partnerships initiated by either universities or research user organisations.…”

Unknown makes unloved—A case study on improving integrated health and social care in the Netherlands using a participatory approach

“…Some observations regarding the use of participatory methods to improve and evaluate integrated care practice can also be made based on this case study. In line with the EIT and other models (Glasgow et al, ; Horowitz, Robinson, & Seifer, ; Jull, Giles, & Graham, ), the needs and priorities of local stakeholders were the starting point of the improvement process. This approach facilitated the establishment of partnerships between researchers and stakeholders, but also between stakeholders themselves, and it stimulated stakeholders to challenge their established mind‐set and views (Eyre et al, ; Martin Fortin & Moira, ).…”

‘Back to Life’—Using knowledge exchange processes to enhance lifestyle interventions for liver transplant recipients: A qualitative study

“…The results of the present study contribute to personcentred health care design by creating partnerships between researchers and the people for whom the research is ultimately meant to be of use. 34 This challenges assumptions of experts and values the consideration of LTR life priorities during the course of recovery.…”