ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022
A scoping review to identify and describe the characteristics of theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Axiology and dynamics of contemporary research groups: a systematic review and hermeneutic meta-analysis of knowledge, values, and social elements.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Perceptions, motivations, needs and experiences of geriatricians with regard to research and research consortia.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Facilitators' experiences of co-designing an intrapartum care intervention in four sub-Saharan African countries: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Addressing global health equity through Global Collaborative Evidence Networks: a narrative literature review of governance models, power and participation.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- Frameworks Used to Engage Postsecondary Students in Campus Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- 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
- Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Community-engaged research: Bringing the science of developmental psychopathology into the real world.Development and psychopathology · 2024Article
- Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies.Clinical kidney journal · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEngaging users of health research, namely knowledge users, as partners in the research process may to lead to evidence that is more relevant to the users. This may optimize the uptake of evidence in healthcare practice, resulting in improved health outcomes or more efficient healthcare systems. However, barriers to involving knowledge users in the research process exist. Theories, models and frameworks may help guide the process of involving knowledge users and address barriers to engaging with knowledge users in research; however, there is little evidence identifying or describing the theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships.
objectivesIdentify and describe theories, models and frameworks of health research partnerships. Report on concepts of knowledge user engagement represented in identified theories, models and frameworks.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review. Database (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PCORI) and ancestry and snowball searches were utilized. Included articles were written in English, published between January 2005 and June 2021, specific to health, a research partnership, and referred to a theory, model or framework. No critical appraisal was conducted. We developed a coding framework to extract details related to the publication (e.g. country, year) and theory, model or framework (e.g. intended users, theoretical underpinning, methodology, methods of development, purpose, concepts of knowledge user engagement). One reviewer conducted data extraction. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were utilized to report the results.
resultsWe identified 21 874 articles in screening. Thirty-nine models or frameworks were included in data analysis, but no theory. Two models or frameworks (5%) were underpinned by theory. Literature review was the method (n = 11, 28%) most frequently used to develop a model or framework. Guiding or managing a partnership was the most frequently reported purpose of the model/framework (n = 14, 36%). The most represented concept of knowledge user engagement was principles/values (n = 36, 92%).
conclusionsThe models and frameworks identified could be utilized by researchers and knowledge users to inform aspects of a health research partnership, such as guidance or implementation of a partnership. Future research evaluating the quality and applicability of the models and frameworks is necessary to help partners decide which model or framework to implement.
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.