Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805202›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2019

Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet?

Davina Banner, Marc Bains, Sandra Carroll, Damanpreet K Kandola, Danielle E Rolfe, Caroline Wong, Ian D Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

114 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Adapting a mental health program for people with multiple myeloma and smouldering myeloma: a consumer-informed feasibility study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The Many Faces of Engagement: A Scoping Review of Paediatric Patient and Family Engagement in Clinical Care, Education and Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Meta-Research on the Science of Lived Experience Engagement in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Better Healthcare Together: Co-Designing a Framework for Health Service Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

54 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

7 authors.

Davina Banner1School of Nursing, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, V2N4Z9 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7926-5922
Marc BainsHeartLife Foundation, Vancouver, Canada.
Sandra Carroll4School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University and Associate Scientist, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Canada.
Damanpreet K Kandola5School of Health Sciences, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada.
Danielle E Rolfe6School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Caroline WongCentre of Excellence in Partnership with Patients and the Public, Montreal, Canada.
Ian D Graham8School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventative Medicine, University of Ottawa and Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryThere have been many attempts to improve how healthcare services are developed and delivered. Despite this, we know that there are many gaps and differences in practice and that these can lead to poor patient outcomes. In addition, there are also concerns that research is being undertaken that does not reflects the realities or needs of those using healthcare services, and that the use of research findings in practice is slow. As such, shared approaches to research, such as integrated knowledge translation, are being used.Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach that brings together researchers, along with other stakeholders that have knowledge about a particular healthcare issue. Stakeholders may include healthcare providers and policy-makers. More recently, there has been a growing awareness of the need to include patients and members of the public within research processes. These collaborative and patient-oriented research approaches are seen as a way to develop research that tackles ongoing gaps in practice and reflect the insights, needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes. Despite great support, little is known about how these major research approaches are connected, or how they may bring about improvements in the development and use of research evidence. In this paper, we examine how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked, as well as exploring where differences exist. Through this, we highlight opportunities for greater patient engagement in IKT research and to identify areas that need to be understood further. ABSTRACT: Healthcare organizations across the world are being increasingly challenged to develop and implement services that are evidence-based and bring about improvement in patient and health service outcomes. Despite an increasing emphasis upon evidence-based practice, large variations in practice remain and gaps pervade in the creation and application of knowledge that improves outcomes. More collaborative models of health research have emerged over recent years, including integrated knowledge translation (IKT), whereby partnerships with key knowledge users are developed to enhance the responsiveness and application of the findings. Likewise, the meaningful engagement of patients, in addition to the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes and priorities, has been hailed as another mechanism to improve the relevance, impact and efficiency of research.Collectively, both IKT and patient engagement processes provide a vehicle to support research that can address health disparities and improve the delivery of effective and responsive healthcare services. However, the evidence to support their impact is limited and while these approaches are inextricably connected through their engagement focus, it is unclear how IKT and patient engagement processes are linked conceptually, theoretically, and practically. In this paper, we will begin to critically examine some of the linkages and tensions that exist between IKT and patient-engagement for research and will examine potential opportunities for IKT researchers as they navigate and enact meaningful partnerships with patients and the public.

Indexed as

Integrated knowledge translationKnowledge translationPartnershipsPatient and public engagementPatient-oriented research

Identifiers

PMID30805202
PMCPMC6373045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.