ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Partnered health research in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of perceptions among researchers and knowledge users involved in funded projects between 2011 and 2019.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What actually happens in partnered health research? A concordance analysis of agreement on partnership practices in funded Canadian projects between academic and knowledge user investigators.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- 'There has to be some chemistry there': an interpretive description exploring the experiences, motivations and dynamics of partnered child health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEngaging knowledge users in health research is accelerating in Canada. Our objective was to examine perceptions of partnered health research among individuals involved in funded Canadian partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019.
methodsWe invited 2155 recipients of 1153 funded projects to answer a questionnaire probing project characteristics and perceptions of partnered health research. We described and compared perceived effects of involving knowledge users in the project, team cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation for working in partnership between two categories of respondents: project role [nominated principal investigators (NPIs), other researchers and knowledge users] and gender.
findingsWe analysed data from 589 respondents (42% NPIs, 40% other researchers and 18% knowledge users; 56% women). Among the perceived effects variables, the proportion of ratings of significant influence of involving knowledge users in the project ranged between 12% and 63%. Cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation variables ranged between 58% and 97% agreement. There were no significant differences between respondent groups for most variables. NPIs and women rated the overall influence of involving knowledge users as significant more than other respondent groups (p < 0.001). NPIs also reported higher agreement with feeling sufficiently included in team activities, pressure to engage and partnerships enabling personal goals (all p < 0.001).
conclusionsMost respondents held positive perceptions of working in partnership, although ratings of perceived effects indicated limited effects of involving knowledge users in specific research components and on project outcomes. Continued analysis of project outcomes may identify specific contexts and partnership characteristics associated with greater impact.
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.