A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement

Janet E Jull, Laurie Davidson, Rachel Dungan, Tram Nguyen, Krista P Woodward, Ian D Graham, Janet E Jull, Laurie Davidson, Rachel Dungan, Tram Nguyen, Krista P Woodward, Ian D Graham

Abstract

Background: Engaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users ("knowledge users") of health care systems, as co-producers of health research, can help to ensure that research products will better address real world needs. Our aim was to identify and review frameworks of knowledge user engagement in health research in a systematic manner, and to describe the concepts comprising these frameworks.

Methods: An international team sharing a common interest in knowledge user engagement in health research used a consensus-building process to: 1) agree upon criteria to identify articles, 2) screen articles to identify existing frameworks, 3) extract, analyze data, and 4) synthesize and report the concepts of knowledge user engagement described in health research frameworks. We utilized the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (PCORI Explorer) as a source of articles related to engagement in health research. The search includes articles from May 1995 to December 2017.

Results: We identified 54 articles about frameworks for knowledge user engagement in health research and report on 15 concepts. The average number of concepts reported in the 54 articles is n = 7, and ranges from n = 1 to n = 13 concepts. The most commonly reported concepts are: knowledge user - prepare, support (n = 44), relational process (n = 39), research agenda (n = 38). The least commonly reported concepts are: methodology (n = 8), methods (n = 10) and analysis (n = 18). In a comparison of articles that report how research was done (n = 26) versus how research should be done (n = 28), articles about how research was done report concepts more often and have a higher average number of concepts (n = 8 of 15) in comparison to articles about how research should be done (n = 6 of 15). The exception is the concept "evaluate" and that is more often reported in articles that describe how research should be done.

Conclusions: We propose that research teams 1) consider engagement with the 15 concepts as fluid, and 2) consider a form of partnered negotiation that takes place through all phases of research to identify and use concepts appropriate to their team needs. There is a need for further work to understand concepts for knowledge user engagement.

Keywords: Co-production; Collaboration; Engagement; Framework; Health system; Integrated knowledge translation; Knowledge; Model; Research.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Defining interests in co-production of knowledge
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Procedure
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Article selection flow diagram
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Reporting of concepts
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Articles describing how research was done to foster knowledge user engagement in health research: reporting across concepts (n=26)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Articles describing how research should be done to foster knowledge user engagement in health research: reporting across concepts (n=28)
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Meta-framework, knowledge user engagement in collaborative research

References

    1. Graham ID, Tetroe J. Knowledge translation research group. Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(11):936–941. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.07.004.
    1. Tetroe J. Knowledge Translation at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a primer. Focus Technical Brief. 2007;18:1-8.
    1. Van de Ven D, Johnson P. Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manag Rev. 2006;31(4):802–821. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.22527385.
    1. Bowen S, Graham I. Integrated knowledge translation. In: Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editors. Knowledge translation in healthcare: moving evidence to practice. West Sussex: Wiley; 2013. pp. 14–23.
    1. Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS, Paez KA. Advisory panel on patient engagement (inaugurel panel 2013) . The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–170. doi: 10.1370/afm.2042.
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Patient engagement: What is patient engagement? Government of Canada. 2018.
    1. Parry D, Salsberg J, Macauley AC. Guide to researcher and knowledge-user collaboration in health research. 2015.
    1. Schmittdiel JA, Desai J, Schroeder EB, Paolino AR, Nichols GA, Lawrence JM, et al. Methods for engaging stakeholders in comparative effectiveness research: a patient-centered approach to improving diabetes care. Healthc (Amst) 2015;3(2):80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.02.005.
    1. Center for Commununity Health and Development at the University of Kansas . Community Toolbox. Section 8: Identifying and analyzing stakeholders and their interests. 2016.
    1. Heaven A, Brown L, Foster M, Clegg A. Keeping it credible in cohort multiple randomised controlled trials: the community ageing research 75+ (CARE 75+) study model of patient and public involvement and engagement. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:30. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0044-9.
    1. Forsythe L, Heckert A, Margolis MK, Schrandt S, Frank L. Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:17–31. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1581-x.
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. 2018.
    1. n.a. PaCER - Patient and Community Engagement Research. Welcome to PaCER: PaCER Innovates; 2018. Available from: . Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
    1. Graham ID, Kothari A, McCutcheon C, on behalf of the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network Program Leads Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0700-y.
    1. Hayes H, Buckland S, Tarpey M. INVOLVE briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS. Eastleigh: INVOLVE: Public Health and Social Care Research; 2012.
    1. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council . Partnership Projects: Commonwealth of Australia 2018. 2018.
    1. Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lei P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:5. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4.
    1. Walker L, Avant K. Strategies for theory construction in nursing. 4. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005.
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.
    1. Rycroft-Malone J. Theory and knowledge translation: setting some coordinates. Nurs Res. 2007;56(4 Suppl):S78–S85. doi: 10.1097/01.NNR.0000280631.48407.9b.
    1. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
    1. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Engagement in health research literature explorer: patient centered research outcomes research institute. 2018.
    1. Patient Centred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Engagement in Health Research Literature Supplemental Methods Information n.d. Available from: . Accessed 23 Nov 2018.
    1. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
    1. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11(1):72–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x.
    1. Abma TA, Broerse JE. Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expect. 2010;13(2):160–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00549.x.
    1. James S, Arniella G, Bickell NA, Walker W, Robinson V, Taylor B, et al. Community ACTION boards: an innovative model for effective community-academic research partnerships. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2011;5(4):399–404.
    1. Johnson DS, Bush MT, Brandzel S, Wernli KJ. The patient voice in research-evolution of a role. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:6. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0020-4.
    1. Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, Taylor R, Beech R, Dziedzic K, et al. Patient and public involvement in primary care research - an example of ensuring its sustainability. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:1. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0015-1.
    1. Dickert N, Sugarman J. Ethical goals of community consultation in research. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(7):1123–1127. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.058933.
    1. Hunt JB, Curran G, Kramer T, Mouden S, Ward-Jones S, Owen R, et al. Partnership for implementation of evidence-based mental health practices in rural federally qualified health centers: theory and methods. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012;6(3):389–398. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2012.0039.
    1. Research. NIfH. Going the Extra Mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. The final report and recommendations to the Director General Research and Development/Chief Medical Officer Department of Health of the ‘Breaking Boundaries’ strategic review of public involvement in the National Institute for Health Research.: INVOLVE, NIHR; 2015.
    1. Graham PW, Kim MM, Clinton-Sherrod AM, Yaros A, Richmond AN, Jackson M, et al. What is the role of culture, diversity, and community engagement in transdisciplinary translational science? Transl Behav Med. 2016;6(1):115–124. doi: 10.1007/s13142-015-0368-2.
    1. Jull J, Giles A, Boyer Y, Stacey D. Minwaashin Lodge - The Aboriginal Women's Support Centre. Building and enacting ethical research processes: the example of culturally adapting a decision making strategy. ACME Int J Critical Geographies. 2016; (pre-print). Available from: . Accessed 16 Sept 2018.
    1. Fagan MB, Morrison CR, Wong C, Carnie MB, Gabbai-Saldate P. Implementing a pragmatic framework for authentic patient-researcher partnerships in clinical research. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5(3):297–308. doi: 10.2217/cer-2015-0023.
    1. Sauers-Ford HS, Simmons JM, Shah SS, Team HOS Strategies to engage stakeholders in research to improve acute care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(2):123–125. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2492.
    1. Shelef DQ, Rand C, Streisand R, Horn IB, Yadav K, Stewart L, et al. Using stakeholder engagement to develop a patient-centered pediatric asthma intervention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138(6):1512–1517. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.10.001.
    1. Woolf SH, Purnell JQ, Simon SM, Zimmerman EB, Camberos GJ, Haley A, et al. Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:463–482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-082214-110901.
    1. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181–194. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.7.
    1. Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA. 2007;297(4):407–410. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.4.407.
    1. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–1166. doi: 10.1111/hex.12090.
    1. Savory C. Patient and public involvement in translative healthcare research. Clin Gov Int J. 2010;15(3):191–199. doi: 10.1108/14777271011063823.
    1. Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, et al. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:17. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x.
    1. Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O'Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6.
    1. Greenhalgh Trisha, Hinton Lisa, Finlay Teresa, Macfarlane Alastair, Fahy Nick, Clyde Ben, Chant Alan. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expectations. 2019;22(4):785–801. doi: 10.1111/hex.12888.
    1. Boivin A, L'Espérance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, et al. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: a systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075–1084. doi: 10.1111/hex.12804.
    1. Frank L, Forsythe L, Ellis L, Schrandt S, Sheridan S, Gerson J, et al. Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(5):1033–1041. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0893-3.
    1. Forsythe L, Carman K, Fayish L, Davidson L, Hickam D, Hall C, et al. Patient engagement in research: early findings from the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Health Aff. 2019;38(3):359–367. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067.
    1. Jull J, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Moher D, Petkovic J, Yoganathan M, et al. Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e026866. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026866.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다