Is knowledge translation without patient or community engagement flawed?

Ramsden, Vivian R.; Rabbitskin, Norma; Westfall, John M.; Felzien, Maret; Braden, Janice; Sand, Jessica

doi:10.1093/fampra/cmw114

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Co-design is a methodology that focuses on bringing together end users' experience in a collaborative process [10]. Authentic collaboration involves engaging these users in all phases of the research process [11]. Therefore, this study was a collaboration between the Mi-PARIHS team and implementation project teams who had used the framework in their work and who had agreed to share their experience and tools to inform ongoing development and refinement of i-PARIHS resources.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects

Hunter

Kim

Mudge

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework is an implementation framework that has been developed and refined over the last 20 years. Its underlying philosophy is that implementing research into healthcare practice is complex, unpredictable and nonlinear which therefore requires a flexible and responsive approach to implementation. Facilitation is recognized as the central ingredient of this approach, and i-PARIHS now provides a Facilitation Guide with associated tools. This multiple case study of four implementation projects explored how the i-PARIHS framework has been practically operationalized by diverse implementation project teams. Methods: A co-design approach was used to elicit the experiences of four implementation project teams who used the i-PARIHS framework to guide their implementation approach. We conducted the established co-design steps of (i) setting up for success, (ii) gathering the experience, and (iii) understanding the experience. In particular we explored teams' approaches to setting up their projects; why and how they used the i-PARIHS framework and what they learnt from the experience. Results: We found both commonalities and differences in the use of i-PARIHS across the four implementation projects: (i) all the projects used the Facilitation Checklist that accompanies i-PARIHS as a starting point, (ii) the projects differed in how facilitation was carried out, (iii) existing tools were adapted for distinct phases: preimplementation, during implementation, and post-implementation stages; and (iv) project-specific tools were often developed for monitoring implementation activities and fidelity. Conclusions: We have provided a detailed overview of how current users of i-PARIHS are operationalising the framework, which existing tools they are using or adapting to use, and where they have needed to develop new tools to best utilise the framework. Importantly, this study highlights the value of existing tools from the published i-PARIHS Facilitation Guide and provides a starting point to further refine and add to these tools within a future Mobilising Implementation of i-PARIHS (or "Mi-PARIHS") suite of resources. Specifically, Mi-PARIHS might include more explicit guidance and/or tools for developing a structured implementation plan and monitoring fidelity to the implementation plan, including recording how strategies are tailored to an evolving context.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects

Hunter

Kim

Mudge

et al. 2020

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The researcher discussed the findings in Spanish with the doctors specializing in obstetrics and gynecology at Hospital Asdrubal de la Torre, and the community leader summarized the results for discussion with the community in Quichua (the local Indigenous language) after the researcher had returned home. All academic disseminations were finalized through long distance discussions with the community leader, who was also a co-author, and included a poster presented by the medical student at the University bursary competition day in fall 2011 (Dube 2015;Ramsden 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planned Parenthood as a Public Health Imperative: A Participatory Research Exploring the Use of Contraception by Indigenous Women of Chilcapamba, Ecuador

Roy

Bartlett

Cushcagua³

et al. 2020

Collaborations: A Journal of Community-Based Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Government policies have led to an increase in modern contraception use. Rural indigenous populations in countries like Ecuador, however, have relatively lower rates of utilization. Our objectives were to work with the community to identify perceived barriers for contraception use and determine solutions for an indigenous Ecuadorian community. Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive study design based on participatory research principles, focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with women in the community as well as semi-structured interviews with physicians working at the regional hospital. All sessions were taped, transcribed, translated and analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis. Results: Women had basic knowledge about contraception, but also had many fears related to false beliefs about side effects. Women using modern contraception spoke of difficulties getting to a doctor to get a prescription. They had a relationship of trust with their partners although men were perceived to have preponderant decisional powers. Physicians suggested creating a mobile team to provide information about maternal health and to distribute contraceptives directly in the communities. Conclusions: There is need for rural communities to have better information and access to contraception. While the Ecuador national contraception policy has made an impact, several practical barriers prevented optimal implementation.

show abstract

“…PPI is supported by participatory processes that aim to ‘address community issues in a collaborative, consultative, democratic, reflective, reflexive, dialogical and improvement-oriented fashion that builds capacity and creates actionable, ownership of findings’ 2. This in turn can increase the application and dissemination of research findings, by increasing the relevance and impact of research for those who stand to benefit from its findings 2–6. Specifically, patients, carers and public stakeholders contribute experiential knowledge, unique perspectives and skills that are essential when designing, implementing and disseminating health research 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring how patients, carers and members of the public are recruited to advisory boards, groups and panels as partners in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review protocol

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEngaging patients, carers and members of the public in health research has become widely recognised as an important approach for bridging the gap between research, and health and social care by increasing the relevance of research for those who benefit from its findings. Specific approaches to engagement vary, but commonly include advisory boards, groups or patient panels that are active throughout all stages of research. The breadth of and optimal strategies for recruiting patients, carers and members of the public to such boards, groups or panels remains unclear. The objective of this manuscript is to identify the breadth of and optimal strategies used to recruit patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups or panels, within public and patient involvement (PPI) research.Methods and analysisThis review follows the scoping review framework by Peters et al, an elaboration on the framework by Arksey and O’Malley. The search strategy was co-developed among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. The review will take place between July 2021 and June 2022. In July and August 2021, eight electronic databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, will be explored to capture all available literature. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria. The data will be presented in a tabular format with a narrative summary discussing how the research findings relate to the overarching research question. A thematic analysis will also be completed using qualitative description, identifying key themes and gaps in the literature.Ethics and disseminationEthics is not required for this review. We aim to disseminate the information gathered through presentations at academic conferences, peer-reviewed publications and consultations with lay audiences.

show abstract

Is knowledge translation without patient or community engagement flawed?

Abstract: Background. The engagement of patients/individuals and/or communities has become increasingly important in all aspects of the research process. Objective.

Cited by 12 publications

References 8 publications

Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects

Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed case study of four multi-site implementation projects

Planned Parenthood as a Public Health Imperative: A Participatory Research Exploring the Use of Contraception by Indigenous Women of Chilcapamba, Ecuador

Exploring how patients, carers and members of the public are recruited to advisory boards, groups and panels as partners in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About