Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29258551›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

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

Janet Jull, Audrey Giles, Ian D Graham

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07436026 (Latin America Network for Primary Palliative Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 293 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
293citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07436026 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Latin America Network for Primary Palliative Care

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of EdinburghRan2026 to 2028Enrolled50ConditionsPalliative Care, Primary Care, Primary Care Physician
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

293 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Engaging with the All My Relations Advisory Board in a healthy food incentive randomized controlled trial: a qualitative process evaluation.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

233 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Janet JullOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. jjull013@uottawa.ca.
Audrey GilesSchool of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ian D GrahamOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR FDN 143237
6 · The paper itself

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 TEXT: We 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.

Indexed as

KnowledgeCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationCooperative BehaviorDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHumansMotivationTranslational Research, BiomedicalVulnerable PopulationsCo-creationCollaborationCommunity-based participatory researchEngagementHealth systemsImplementationIntegrated knowledge translationKnowledge

Identifiers

PMID29258551
PMCPMC5735911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.