ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
Promoting the Implementation of Co-Produced Cochrane Evidence: An Exploratory Study of Improving Partnering With Consumers.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. 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.
- Promoting the Implementation of Co-Produced Cochrane Evidence: An Exploratory Study of Improving Partnering With Consumers.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Co-production of evidence syntheses has the potential to facilitate translation of research findings into policy and practice. However, few studies have explored the process of implementing co-produced evidence. This gap limits our understanding of how, and to what extent, co-production promotes knowledge translation.In this study, we used an implementation science lens to explore factors influencing the implementation of the Best Practice Principles in partnering with consumers (BPP) in hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. The BPP were developed as part of a co-produced Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis exploring consumers' and health providers' experiences and perceptions of partnering. We use the findings of our study to develop strategies for evidence synthesis teams engaged in co-production to optimize the implementation of their review findings. Methods: This exploratory, qualitative study was informed by cooperative inquiry and normalization process theory (NPT). A six-member panel, including researchers, policy makers and consumers, guided data collection and analysis. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with eleven participants (including consumer engagement leads, consumer representatives, and a policymaker) about how to implement the BPP in Melbourne hospitals. Interviews were analyzed using framework analysis. Results: Interview participants reported the BPP were relevant to practice, consumer-centered, practical, and flexible. There were several additional factors that could impact their uptake into practice. These included integration of the BPP into government policies and guidelines, evidence of the cost/benefit of BPP implementation, endorsement from health service leadership, involvement of consumers throughout the implementation process, a structured implementation, and flexible measurement of implementation success. Conclusion: This exploratory study suggested that the BPP, a tool developed through a co-produced Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, promoted knowledge translation. Other factors at the macro- (political and economic), meso- (systems and organizations), and micro- (individual) levels could influence the implementation's success. Implications for evidence synthesis teams aiming to optimize the knowledge translation of their review results are discussed.
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.