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

Zych, Maria Maddalena; Berta, Whitney; Gagliardi, Anna R.

doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9

Cited by 25 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of clinician participants wanted to be more involved in research studies but were unable to get involved to the extent they would like to. This finding is supported by other research that suggests that clinicians want to undertake research, but the majority do not have protected time and if they do, the opportunity is often lost because of competing clinical demands [11,[28][29][30]. Clinicians in our study were frustrated they were not involved in the development of research studies and are usually first aware of a particular study when they are asked to recruit participants from their caseload.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…The views of the clinician participants in our study are similar to those reported in previous studies. A meta narrative review of enablers and barriers of the initiation of research and research user partnerships [11] identified that the personality of the researcher was seen as an enabler to integrated knowledge transfer when perceived as positive and as a barrier when perceived as negative by research users. Attitudes about researchers and the perceived value of research were also identified as being important in enabling or getting in the way of initiating research in health care settings [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such approaches can lead to improved performance within health organisation and improved health outcomes [9]. However, findings from several reviews suggest the mechanisms involved in these approaches are often ill defined [10,11] and impeded by several barriers such as clinician's perceived lack time, differing values, group and personal dynamics of all stakeholders involved [12]. Enablers of co-produced research and the generation of new knowledge include, among other things, understanding the differing needs and priorities of researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders to ensure outcomes meet everyone's needs [13], having clear expectations between the different collaborators [12] and developing capacity among team members to understand each other's roles and expectations [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study

Williams

Craig

Robson

2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The poor translation of research findings into routine clinical practice is common in all areas of healthcare. Having a better understanding of how researchers and clinicians experience engagement in and with research, their working relationships and expectations of each other, may be one way to help to facilitate collaborative partnerships and therefore increase successful translation of research into clinical practice. Aims To explore the views of clinical and research staff about their experiences of working together during research projects and identify the facilitators and barriers. Methods We conducted four focus groups with 18 participants - clinicians, researchers and those with a dual clinical-research role, recruited from one mental health Trust and one university. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. Results Eight themes were identified under the headings of two research questions 1) Barriers and facilitators of either engaging in or with research from the perspective of clinical staff, with themes of understanding the benefits of the research; perceived knowledge and personal qualities of researchers; lack of time and organisational support to be involved in and implement research; and lack of feedback about progress and outcome of research. 2) Barriers and facilitators for engaging with clinicians when conducting research, from the perspective of researchers, with themes of understanding what clinicians need to know and how they need to feel to engage with research; demonstrating an understanding of the clinician’s world; navigating through the clinical world; and demands of the researcher role. Conclusion There was agreement between clinicians and researchers about the barriers and facilitators for engaging clinicians in research. Both groups identified that it was the researcher’s responsibility to form and maintain good working relationships. Better support for researchers in their role calls for training in communication skills and bespoke training to understand the local context in which research is taking place.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study

Williams

Craig

Robson

2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To illustrate the volume of studies being produced, there has been a flurry of studies, in the first 2 months of 2020 alone, on the collaboration and coproduction of health research. The titles include 'Building an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) evidence base: colloquium proceedings and research direction' [76], 'Using a 'rich picture' to facilitate systems thinking in research coproduction' [77], 'Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution' [78], 'Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews' [79], and 'Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a metanarrative review' [80]. Finally, another article in May 2020 presented a new conceptual model for health research systems to strengthen health inequalities research [81].…”

Section: Whose Literature?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO’s review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

Hanney

Kanya

Pokhrel

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening. Main text: The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. Conclusions: The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approachesconducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.

show abstract

“…Currently, the IKT or research partnership literature describes strategies, barriers and facilitators to research partnerships from the perspective of researchers and knowledge users [ 10 , 11 , 17 – 19 ]. However, little is known about how trainees engage in research partnership approaches such as IKT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping review

Cassidy

Shin

Ramage

et al. 2021

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are increasing expectations for researchers and knowledge users in the health system to use a research partnership approach, such as integrated knowledge translation, to increase the relevance and use of research findings in health practice, programmes and policies. However, little is known about how health research trainees engage in research partnership approaches such as IKT. In response, the purpose of this scoping review was to map and characterize the evidence related to using an IKT or other research partnership approach from the perspective of health research trainees in thesis and/or postdoctoral work. Methods We conducted this scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. We searched the following databases in June 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched sources of unpublished studies and grey literature. We reported our findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Results We included 74 records that described trainees’ experiences using an IKT or other research partnership approach to health research. The majority of studies involved collaboration with knowledge users in the research question development, recruitment and data collection stages of the research process. Intersecting barriers to IKT or other research partnerships at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels were reported, including lack of skills in partnership research, competing priorities and trainees’ “outsider” status. We also identified studies that evaluated their IKT approach and reported impacts on partnership formation, such as valuing different perspectives, and enhanced relevance of research. Conclusion Our review provides insights for trainees interested in IKT or other research partnership approaches and offers guidance on how to apply an IKT approach to their research. The review findings can serve as a basis for future reviews and primary research focused on IKT principles, strategies and evaluation. The findings can also inform IKT training efforts such as guideline development and academic programme development.

show abstract

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

Cited by 25 publications

References 45 publications

Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study

Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO’s review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About