ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Let us be heard: critical analysis and debate of collaborative research approaches used in implementation science research with equity-deserving populations.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond the horizon: new directions in research coproduction.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation Science research completed with equity-deserving populations is not well understood or explored. The current opioid epidemic challenges healthcare systems to improve existing practices through implementation of evidence-based interventions. Pregnant persons diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) is an equity-deserving population that continues to experience stigmatization within our healthcare system. Efforts are being made to implement novel approaches to care for this population; however, the implementation research continues to leave the voices of pregnant persons unheard, compounding the existing stigma and marginalization experienced.
methodsThis debate paper highlights a specific case that explores the implementation of the Eat, Sleep, Console (ESC) model of care, a function-based empowerment model used to guide the care for pregnant persons diagnosed with OUD and their infants. We establish our debate within the conceptual discussion of Nguyen and colleagues (2020), and critically analyze the collaborative research approaches, engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production, participatory research and IKT, within the context of engaging equity-deserving populations in research. We completed a literature search in CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Embase using keywords including collaborative research, engagement, equity-deserving, marginalized populations, birthparents, substance use and opioid use disorder with Boolean operators, to support our debate. DISCUSSION: IKT and Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPR) were deemed the most aligned approaches within the case, and boast many similarities; however, they are fundamentally distinct. Although CBPR's intentional methods to address social injustices are essential to consider in research with pregnant persons diagnosed with OUD, IKT aligned best within the implementation science inquiry due to its neutral philosophical underpinning and congruent aims in exploring complex implementation science inquiries. A fundamental gap was noted in IKT's intentional considerations to empowerment and equitable engagement of equity-deserving populations in research; therefore, we proposed informing an IKT approach with Edelman's Trauma and Resilience Informed Research Principles and Practice (TRIRPP) Framework.
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.