Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40270007›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025

Addressing power imbalance in research: exploring power in integrated knowledge translation health research.

Jacqui Cameron, Anita Kothari, Renee Fiolet

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Beyond the horizon: new directions in research coproduction.Health research policy and systems · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Role of Power in Co-Approaches to Health Research: Insights From Spain and the United Kingdom With a Rapid Review of Reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Jacqui CameronSchool of Social Sciences, Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia. jacquic@uow.edu.au.
Anita KothariSchool of Health Studies, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Renee FioletSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Patient and Quality Safety, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntegrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a knowledge translation framework that focuses collaboration between researchers and knowledge users (KUs) to generate research findings. KUs can be policymakers, clinicians, or those with lived experience who partner with researchers. While advocated as an approach that democratizes research and reduces power imbalance between researchers and KUs, it is not known if the implementation of IKT by health researchers actively addresses power imbalances. The aim of this study was to review research using an integrated knowledge translation approach to explore how power is addressed within these research studies. By looking broadly at how the studies addressed/described/discussed/dismantled power we explored examples of when this was done well and not so well, exposing the assumptions sometimes made by researchers.

methodsWe drew from systematic review procedures combined with a modified critical discourse analysis (CDA) lens. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Social Science Database, SocIndex and Google Scholar for English language studies that focused on IKT and power. Data were extracted on study characteristics and a modified CDA which included questions in relation to power (e.g., description of power, phrases used to describe power, evidence of power dynamics, strategies for addressing power imbalances) and end user engagement (e.g., Did they ask KUs how they wanted to be involved? Did they engage in reflection with KUs? Did they discuss dissemination strategies with KUs).

resultsEleven studies were eligible after screening 381 titles and reviewing 40 full-text studies. The use of IKT to address power varied significantly, revealing both positive examples as well as some missed opportunities to address power imbalances from study inception to dissemination.

conclusionRevisiting the use of IKT to examine how power is defined, shared, and managed in relationships with KUs could provide valuable insights. Using a CDA framework to explore these dynamics would indeed address the nuances of power in research contexts. Future research should focus on developing strategies to effectively implement IKT to address power imbalances, leading to research that has a better chance of being useful, usable and used in practice.

Indexed as

Critical discourse analysisIKTIntegrated knowledge translationKnowledge userPowerShared-decision making

Identifiers

PMID40270007
PMCPMC12016258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.