ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
A qualitative descriptive study to explore evaluation and effects of partnered rehabilitation research in Canada.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPartnered rehabilitation research, where researchers and knowledge users (e.g. clinicians, administrators, clients) collaborate on research decision-making and activities, may enhance the use of evidence in clinical practice. Previous research identified gaps in formal evaluation and demonstrated effects of the partnering process in rehabilitation research. This study explored evaluation and effects of partnering on the research process and outcomes, and how partnering contributed to those effects.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Eligible participants were researchers and knowledge users involved in partnered rehabilitation research in Canada who could understand English. We developed an interview guide on the basis of a published framework of partnering in research and a model of partnering in community-based research. We completed semi-structured interviews with seven researchers and six knowledge users, most of whom identified as women and White. Participants had a range of rehabilitation research experience from a few years to decades. We used reflexive thematic analysis to interpret the findings.
resultsNo participants formally evaluated their partnerships, citing challenges such as limited time, but believed it could be valuable. Accordingly, participants described many effects of partnering. We developed one main theme, "Partnering is an Interactive Process Shaping Research and those Involved," along with three subthemes, "Partnering Influences the Research Process from Beginning to End," "Learning through Partnering: Building Individual Research Knowledge, Skills and Capacity" and "The Effects of Partnering are Driven by Multiple Factors." Participants described effects of partnering on the research process, outcomes and individuals; and factors that contributed to the effects.
conclusionsDespite the absence of evaluation, participants identified important impacts on research design, outcomes and individual learning that were influenced by an array of contributing factors. Persisting lack of evaluation of partnering in rehabilitation research may be restricting comprehensive understanding of the effects of partnering. Future research should prioritize approaches that balance rigor and relevance, and clarify who is best to lead evaluation activities.
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.