SynthesisImplementation science : IS2017
Organizational participatory research: a systematic mixed studies review exposing its extra benefits and the key factors associated with them.
Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic mixed studies review on Organizational Participatory Research: towards operational guidance.BMC health services research · 2018Pooled it
- Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2021Trial
- Confidence, attitudes, beliefs and determinants of implementation behaviours among physiotherapists towards clinical management of low back pain before and after implementation of the BetterBack model of care.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- The Sustain and Spread Framework: strategies for sustaining and spreading nutrition care improvements in acute care based on thematic analysis from the More-2-Eat study.BMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Examining the strategic utilization of Community-Academic Partnerships as a research engagement method in clinical and public health research within urban settings: a qualitative analysis.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Inclusivity in Insomnia: Adolescents' Perspectives on the Sleep Solved App: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Mobilizing community assets to address health equity: Evaluation of the Communities Organizing to Promote Equity (COPE) project in Kansas.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Setting the rules of engagement: a qualitative study of challenges and enablers of engaged research in a South African emergency care system.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Who is the emergency care community? A qualitative exploration of stakeholder roles and relationships in engaged research within a South African provincial emergency care system.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026Article
- Patients' Associations as Co-Creators of Knowledge: Insights From a Community-Based Participatory Research Study (ProSafe Project).Health science reports · 2026Article
- Co-producing a recovery college course: insights into a three-phase participatory process and contributions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Ethical challenges, responses and reasoning in co-creation for health promotion: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- "You have to love the party setting": an ethnography of the blurred lines between roles and experiential knowledge in a French harm reduction collective working in the party setting.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Development of a Health Impact Assessment Implementation Model: Enhancing Intersectoral Approaches in Tackling Health Inequalities- A Mixed Methods Study Protocol.HRB open research · 2024Article
- Cross-Sector Collaboration to Improve Access to Community Services for People Living With Diabetes: Contributions From Actor-Network Theory.Health services insights · 2024Article
- Better spiritual support for people living with early stage dementia: Developing the diamond conversation model.Dementia (London, England) · 2024Article
- Lessons learnt from the process of designing care coordination interventions through participatory action research in public healthcare networks of six Latin American countries.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Maintaining Implementation through Dynamic Adaptations (MIDAS): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of implementation strategies to optimize and sustain use of evidence-based practices in Veteran Health Administration (VHA) patients.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Improving primary health care through partnerships: Key insights from a cross-case analysis of multi-stakeholder partnerships in two Canadian provinces.Health science reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research.
methodsWe identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies.
resultsFrom 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members' participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12-14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits.
conclusionsThis review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.