Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38172892›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2024

Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

Kathleen P Conte, Alison Laycock, Jodie Bailie, Emma Walke, Leigh-Ann Onnis, Lynette Feeney, Erika Langham, Frances Cunningham, Veronica Matthews, Ross Bailie

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reflections for the Future of AMR Surveillance and AMR Action.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kathleen P ConteUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Kathleen.conte@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5429-429X
Alison LaycockUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Jodie BailieUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Emma WalkeUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Leigh-Ann OnnisCollege of Business, Law and Governance, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
Lynette FeeneyUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Erika LanghamPoche Centre for Indigenous Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1824-5108
Frances CunninghamWellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Australia.
Veronica MatthewsUniversity Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Ross BailieSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUCharles Darwin University · AUJames Cook University · AUPortland State University · USThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1078927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite that stakeholder participation in evidence synthesis could result in more useful outcomes, there are few examples of processes that actively involve them in synthesis work. Techniques are needed that engage diverse stakeholders as equal partners in knowledge co-production. The aims of this paper are to describe an innovative participatory process of synthesising a large body of academic research products and compare the findings of the participatory process against two traditional approaches to synthesis: a rapid review and a structured review.

methodsFirst, a rapid synthesis of all research outputs (n = 86) was conducted by researchers with in-depth knowledge of the collaboration's research. Second, a team of researchers and service providers conducted a structured synthesis of seventy-eight peer-reviewed articles and reports generated by the collaboration. Fifty-five publications were brought forward for further synthesis in part three, a facilitated participatory synthesis. Finally, we explored the value added by the participatory method by comparing findings generated across the three synthesis approaches.

resultsTwelve researchers and 11 service providers/policy partners-8 self-identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander-participated in two facilitated workshops (totalling 4 h). Workshop activities engaged participants in reviewing publication summaries, identifying key findings, and evoked review, discussion and refinement. The process explicitly linked experiential knowledge to citations of academic research, clearly connecting the two knowledge types. In comparing the findings generated across all three methods we found mostly consistencies; the few discrepancies did not contradict but gave deeper insights into statements created by the other methods. The participatory synthesis generated the most, detailed, and unique findings, and contextual insights about the relevance of the key messages for practice.

conclusionThe participatory synthesis engaged stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and skillsets in synthesising a large body of evidence in a relatively short time. The participatory approach produced findings comparable to traditional synthesis methods while extending knowledge and identifying lessons most relevant for the participants who, ultimately, are the end users of the research. This process will interest other large-scale research collaborations seeking to engage stakeholders in evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesHealth Services, IndigenousHumansPopulation GroupsResearch PersonnelCollaborationContinuous quality improvementCo-productionEvidence reviewIndigenous healthKnowledge translationParticipatory researchRapid synthesisSynthesisSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID38172892
PMCPMC10765661
OpenAlexW4390571218

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.