Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31362791›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2019

Evidence of commitment to research partnerships? Results of two web reviews.

Danielle de Moissac, Sarah Bowen, Ingrid Botting, Ian D Graham, Martha MacLeod, Karen Harlos, Charity Maritim Songok, Monique Bohémier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors.

Danielle de MoissacFaculty of Sciences, Université de Saint-Boniface, 200 ave de la Cathédrale, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 0H7, Canada. ddemoissac@ustboniface.ca.
Sarah BowenApplied Research and Evaluation Consultant, 322 Al Bennett Rd. RR3, Centreville, NS B0P 1J0, Canada.
Ingrid BottingCommunity Health Sciences, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 434-650 Main St, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B1E2, Canada.
Ian D GrahamSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Martha MacLeodSchool of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, UNBC Health Research Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, V2N 4Z9, Canada.
Karen HarlosDepartment of Business and Administration, Workplace Bullying and Mistreatment Partnership for Prevention (SSHRC), University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB, R3B 2E9, Canada.
Charity Maritim SongokMax Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Room S113 - 750 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0W3, Canada.
Monique BohémierUniversité de Saint-Boniface, 200 de la Cathédrale Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2H 0H7, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 143237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study.

methodsTwo separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health 'regions' in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected.

resultsAbsence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced.

conclusionGuidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.

Indexed as

Interinstitutional RelationsAdministrative PersonnelCanadaCooperative BehaviorHealth Services ResearchHumansInternetLeadershipResearch PersonnelTranslational Research, BiomedicalUniversitiesCanadian health systemsHealth researchintegrated knowledge translationpartnership researchresearch collaboration

Identifiers

PMID31362791
PMCPMC6668137

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.