ReviewHealth research policy and systems2020
Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review.
Review in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Bridging the gap: understanding and enhancing the collaborative relationship between spine clinicians and researchers of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- A qualitative descriptive study to explore evaluation and effects of partnered rehabilitation research in Canada.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Evaluating the implementation of integrated knowledge translation in a multi-country research consortium in Sub-Saharan Africa - a mixed methods comparative case study.Implementation science : IS · 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
- Lifeworld-led research: a phenomenological approach to grant experts by experience in vulnerable positions their right to participate in healthcare research.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Review
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Making intersectoral stakeholder engagement in medicine quality research work: lessons from the STARmeds study in Indonesia.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Codeveloping an Online Resource for People Bereaved by Suicide: Mixed Methods User-Centered Study.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of clinical and translational pilot funding using multiple outcome metrics.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- How to strengthen societal impact of research and innovation? Lessons learned from an explanatory research-on-research study on participatory knowledge infrastructures funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- 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
- Does the site of research evidence generation impact on its translation to clinical practice? A protocol paper.PloS one · 2024Article
- Reconceptualizing Integrated Knowledge Translation goals: a case study on basic and clinical science investigating the causes and consequences of food allergy.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- A review of reviews exploring patient and public involvement in population health research and development of tools containing best practice guidance.BMC public health · 2023Review
- A scoping review to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Using knowledge brokering activities to promote allied health clinicians' engagement in research: a qualitative exploration.BMJ open · 2022Article
- 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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated knowledge translation refers to researcher and research user partnerships to co-generate and implement knowledge. This type of partnership may be critical to success in increasing knowledge use and impact, but the conceptualisation of its initiation has not been fully developed. Initiating this type of partnership has proven to be challenging but crucial to its success. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-narrative review of partnership initiation concepts, processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes in the disciplines of healthcare and social sciences where examples of researcher and research user partnerships were found.
methodsSeven research traditions were identified. Three were in the discipline of social sciences (including psychology, education and business) and five were in the discipline of healthcare (including medicine, nursing, public health, health services research). Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ABI Inform, ERIC, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library on June 9, 2017. Fifty titles and abstracts were screened in triplicate; data were extracted from three records in duplicate. Narratives comprised of study characteristics and conceptual and empirical findings across traditions were tabulated, summarised and compared.
resultsA total of 7779 unique results were identified and 17 reviews published from 1998 to 2017 were eligible. All reviews identified a partnership initiation phase referred to as 'early' or 'developmental', or more vaguely as 'fuzzy', across six traditions - integrated knowledge translation, action research, stakeholder engagement, knowledge transfer, team initiation and shared mental models. The partnership initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes were common to multiple narratives and summarised in a Partnership Initiation Conceptual Framework. Our review revealed limited use or generation of theory in most included reviews, and little empirical evidence testing the links between partnership initiation processes, enablers or barriers, and outcomes for the purpose of describing successful researcher and research user partnership initiation.
conclusionsNarratives across multiple research traditions revealed similar integrated knowledge translation initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes, which were captured in a conceptual framework that can be employed by researchers and research users to study and launch partnerships. While partnership initiation was recognised, it remains vaguely conceptualised despite lengthy research in several fields of study. Ongoing research of partnership initiation is needed to identify or generate relevant theory, and to empirically establish outcomes and the determinants of those outcomes.
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.