ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019
Collaborative health research partnerships: a survey of researcher and knowledge-user attitudes and perceptions.
Article 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 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Globalization in the Healthcare Industry: Drivers, Risks, and Adaptation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Facilitating collaboration between public health researchers and policymakers: a scoping review of global practices, barriers and facilitators.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Partnered health research in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of perceptions among researchers and knowledge users involved in funded projects between 2011 and 2019.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Advancing collaborative research for health: why does collaboration matter?BMJ global health · 2024Review
- The health service perspective on determinants of success in allied health student research project collaborations: a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Recommendations for successful involvement of patient partners in complex intervention research: a collaborative learning process.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- "Research ends with publication": a qualitative study on the use of health policy and systems research in Ethiopia.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Community engagement in research addressing infectious diseases of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative systematic review.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool).BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Australian first few X household transmission project for COVID-19.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Fit for purpose. Co-production of complex behavioural interventions. A practical guide and exemplar of co-producing a telehealth-delivered exercise intervention for people with stroke.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Bridging the gap: Identifying diverse stakeholder needs and barriers to accessing evidence and resources for children's pain.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 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
- Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approach in trainee-led research: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Systemic Fairness for Sharing Health Data: Perspectives From Swiss Stakeholders.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated knowledge translation describes the process of partnered research between different stakeholders with the goal of producing research that ultimately achieves a greater impact when put into practice. A better understanding of research partnerships and integrated knowledge translation has implications for future partnerships and collaborative initiatives in practice. Our research describes and expands upon previous work done to identify barriers and attitudes toward collaboration in the context of research funding opportunities that required researcher-knowledge-user partnerships.
methodsA survey was sent out to researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and knowledge-users who worked collaboratively on their research projects. There were two mirror versions of the survey, one for researchers and one for knowledge-users. Descriptive statistics, χ
resultsThe results revealed that, although there were differences in the roles of researchers and knowledge-users, both groups felt very positive towards their partnerships. Some of the barriers identified as inhibiting effective partnerships were resource constraints (funding/time) and differences in contribution and involvement amongst team members. Despite these barriers, both researchers and knowledge-users felt that the partnership was not only sustainable, but also helped create an impact.
conclusionsOur results provide useful information for funding agencies launching opportunities requiring or encouraging collaborative research projects between researchers and knowledge-users.
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.