Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35287758›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework.

Robert K D McLean, Fred Carden, Ian D Graham, Alice B Aiken, Rebecca Armstrong, Judy Bray, Christine E Cassidy, Olivia Daub, Erica Di Ruggiero, Leslie A Fierro and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How and why funders support engaged research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

18 authors at 13 institutions in 3 countries.

Robert K D McLeanPolicy and Evaluation Division, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. rmclean@idrc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-4817
Fred CardenUsing Evidence Inc., Ottawa, Canada.
Ian D GrahamClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute & Schools of Epidemiology and Public Health & Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Alice B AikenDalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Rebecca ArmstrongResearch and Evaluation Branch, National Disability Insurance Agency, Melbourne, Australia.
Judy BrayCanadian Cancer Society, Toronto, Canada.
Christine E CassidySchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Olivia DaubIntegrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Erica Di RuggieroDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Leslie A FierroMax Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Michelle GagnonConsultant, Ottawa, Canada.
Alison M HutchinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety in the Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia & Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Roman KislovFaculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK & School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anita KothariSchool of Health Studies, Western University, London, Canada.
Sara KreindlerDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Chris McCutcheonIntegrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Jessica ReszelOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada & School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Gayle ScarrowMichael Smith Health Research B.C., Vancouver, Canada.
Dalhousie University · CAOttawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CACanadian Cancer Society · CADeakin University · AUGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation · CAInternational Development Research Centre · CAManchester Metropolitan University · GBMcGill University · CAMichael Smith Health Research BC · CANational Disability Insurance Agency · AUUniversity of Toronto · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

CIHR 143237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production-Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)-and outline our field test of this approach.

methodsUsing a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. DISCUSSION: This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders.

Identifiers

PMID35287758
PMCPMC8919555
OpenAlexW4220738469

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.