ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Evaluating the perceived outcome and impact of an integrated knowledge translation approach in the development of an equity reporting guideline: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) involves active engagement of knowledge users in co-producing research, ensuring their perspectives shape study design, analysis, and reporting. This can strengthen justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) considerations. We adopted an IKT approach in developing STROBE-Equity, an equity-focused reporting guidelin extension. The perceived value of embedding JEDI principles in reporting guideline development is unknown. This study examines the team's perceptions on the implementation of the JEDI-enhanced IKT process and its influence on the guideline. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of STROBE-Equity project members (n = 68) between July-August 2024. The 19-item survey assessed disciplinary background, participation, and perceived benefits, challenges, and potential impacts of the JEDI-enhanced IKT approach. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes, which were quantified with frequencies and percentages. Thirty-one members responded. Most were aged 35-54 (61%), female (55%), based in Canada (35%), and trained in epidemiology (61%). Reported benefits of IKT included integrating diverse perspectives, inclusive representation, and collaborative learning. Challenges involved accessibility and accommodations, consensus-building, and navigating power dynamics between researchers, policymakers, and those with lived experience. Participants perceived that IKT broadened the understanding of social conditions in the development process and facilitated incorporation of end-user perspectives, which they believed would strengthen the credibility and applicability of the guideline. They also noted that this collaborative approach would likely enhance the dissemination and uptake of STROBE-Equity and enhance its acceptability moving forward. A JEDI-enhanced IKT approach was viewed as beneficial to the development of the reporting guideline. Challenges such as accessibility and balancing power dynamics highlight areas where the participatory process could be improved. Future research should continue to refine and evaluate inclusive approaches to guideline development to further advance JEDI in research.
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.