Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article presents a trend analysis of the directions, nuances, and theoretical developments in community engagement (CE) practices in higher education and training (HET) environments in South Africa since 1994. It focuses on the nexus of research, teaching and learning, and community engagement. The article identifies specific associations of CE with core HET activities, illustrating how this integrated approach has brought about positive change. The research was conducted in three phases. In Phase I, purposeful sampling was used to identify the published work of leading scholars in South Africa who had engaged with the call for adopting a more transformative and collaborative approach to research such that the very act of academically engaging with(in) community became an educationally visionary act. In Phase II, the scope of the sampling was broadened to include research in multiple disciplines. In the third phase, the sampling was broadened chronologically to include research since the 1990s, and limited to the social sciences in order to conduct a trend analysis that considered historical context and growth directions in CE in the social sciences. The discussion presents an analysis of trends that emanated from research responses to CE by HET.

Background Conducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, organisations, patients) is a promising and popular approach to improving the implementation of research findings in policy and practice. This study aimed to identify the principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts reported in different types of reviews of research partnerships in order to obtain a better understanding of the scope of the research partnership literature. Methods This review of reviews is part of a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to synthesise the research partnership literature with five conceptually linked literature reviews. The main research question was ‘What principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts are reported in different types of research partnership approaches?’. We included articles describing a literature review of research partnerships using a systematic search strategy. We used an adapted version of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess quality. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2018. Principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts were extracted from the included reviews and analysed using direct content analysis. Results We included 86 reviews using terms describing several research partnership approaches (e.g. community-based participatory research, participatory research, integrated knowledge translation). After the analyses, we synthesised 17 overarching principles and 11 overarching strategies and grouped them into one of the following subcategories: relationship between partners; co-production of knowledge; meaningful stakeholder engagement; capacity-building, support and resources; communication process; and ethical issues related to the collaborative research activities. Similarly, we synthesised 20 overarching outcomes and impacts on researchers, stakeholders, the community or society, and the research process. Conclusions This review of reviews is the first that presents overarching principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships. This review is unique in scope as we synthesised literature across multiple research areas, involving different stakeholder groups. Our findings can be used as a first step to guide the initiation and maintenance of research partnerships and to create a classification system of the key domains of research partnerships, which may improve reporting consistency in the research partnership literature. Trial registration This study is registered via Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GVR7Y .

This article is a response to Oliver et al.’s Commentary ‘The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?’ recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed ‘dark side’, of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary’s limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term ‘co-production’ more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as ‘cobiquity’ – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of ‘co’ words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term ‘co-production’. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to ‘the problem’ of ‘co-production’ seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia’s failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.

Background Health research is conducted with the expectation that it advances knowledge and eventually translates into improved health systems and population health. However, research findings are often caught in the know-do gap: they are not acted upon in a timely way or not applied at all. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is advanced as a way to increase the relevance, applicability and impact of research. With IKT, knowledge users work with researchers throughout the research process, starting with identification of the research question. Knowledge users represent those who would be able to use research results to inform their decisions (e.g. clinicians, managers, policy makers, patients/families and others). Stakeholders are increasingly interested in the idea that IKT generates greater and faster societal impact. Stakeholders are all those who are interested in the use of research results but may not necessarily use them for their own decision-making (e.g. governments, funders, researchers, health system managers and policy makers, patients and clinicians). Although IKT is broadly accepted, the actual research supporting it is limited and there is uncertainty about how best to conduct and support IKT. This paper presents a protocol for a programme of research testing the assumption that engaging the users of research in phases of its production leads to (a) greater appreciation of and capacity to use research; (b) the production of more relevant, useful and applicable research that results in greater impact; and (c) conditions under which it is more likely that research results will influence policy, managerial and clinical decision-making. Methods The research programme will adopt an interdisciplinary, international, cross-sector approach, using multiple and mixed methods to reflect the complex and social nature of research partnerships. We will use ongoing and future natural IKT experiments as multiple cases to study IKT in depth, and we will take advantage of the team’s existing relationships with provincial, national and international organizations. Case studies will be retrospective and prospective, and the 7-year grant period will enable longitudinal studies. The initiation of partnerships, funding processes, the research lifecycle and then outcomes/impacts post project will be studied in real time. These living laboratories will also allow testing of strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the IKT approach. Discussion This is the first interdisciplinary, systematic and programmatic research study on IKT. The research will provide scientific evidence on how to reliably and validly measure collaborative research partnerships and their impacts. The proposed research will build the science base for IKT, assess its relationship with research use and identify best practices and appropriate conditions for conducting IKT to achieve the greatest impact. It will also train and mentor the next generation of IKT researchers.

Seniors with chronic diseases are often called on to self-manage their conditions. Mobile health (mHealth) tools may be a useful strategy to help seniors access health information at the point of decision-making, receive real-time feedback and coaching, and monitor health conditions. However, developing successful mHealth interventions for seniors presents many challenges. One of the key challenges is to ensure the scope of possible research questions includes the diverse views of seniors, experts and the stakeholder groups who support seniors as they manage chronic disease. Our primary objective was to present a case-study of a collaborative research approach to the development of an interdisciplinary research agenda. Our secondary objectives were to report on the results of a nominal group technique (NGT) approach used generate research questions and to assess the success of including non-academic researchers to enrich the scope, priority, and total number of possible research questions. We invited researchers and stakeholders to participate in a full day meeting that included rapid-style presentations by researchers, health care professionals, technology experts, patients and community groups followed by group discussions. An NGT was used to establish group consensus on the following question: In your opinion, what research needs to be done to better understand the effectiveness, usability and design of mobile health apps and devices for older adults? Overall, the collaborative approach was a very successful strategy to bring together a diverse group of participants with the same end goal. The 32 participants generated 119 items in total. The top three research questions that emerged from the NGT were related to adoption, the need for high quality tools and the digital divide. Strong sub-themes included privacy and security, engagement and design. The NGT also helped us include the perspectives information from non-academic researchers that would not have been captured if the process had been limited to the research team. Developing ways for patients and other stakeholders to have a voice when it comes to developing patient awareness as related to mHealth may guide future research into engagement, ownership, usability and design. It is our intention that our paper be used and adapted by other researchers to engage small or vulnerable populations often excluded from mHealth research and design.

Background Getting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers’ experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services. Methods Interviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis. Results Collaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or ‘student researchers’ were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner’s and researcher’s contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management. Conclusions Collaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.

Background Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge as it is believed to increase knowledge use. Canadian health research funders have advocated for the use of integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health research, however, there is limited research around how IKT compares to other collaborative research approaches. Our objective was to better understand how IKT compares with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research by identifying the differences and similarities among them in order to provide conceptual clarity and reduce researcher and knowledge user confusion about these common approaches. Methods We employed a qualitative descriptive method using interview data to better understand experts’ perspectives and experiences on collaborative research approaches. Participants’ responses were analysed through thematic analysis to elicit core themes. The analysis was centred around the concept of IKT, as it is the most recent approach; IKT was then compared and contrasted with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research. As this was an iterative process, data triangulation and member-checking were conducted with participants to ensure accuracy of the emergent themes and analysis process. Results Differences were noted in the orientation (i.e. original purpose), historical roots (i.e. disciplinary origin) and partnership/engagement (i.e. role of partners etc.). Similarities among the approaches included (1) true partnerships rather than simple engagement, (2) focus on essential components and processes rather than labels, (3) collaborative research orientations rather than research methods, (4) core values and principles, and (5) extensive time and financial investment. Core values and principles among the approaches included co-creation, reciprocity, trust, fostering relationships, respect, co-learning, active participation, and shared decision-making in the generation and application of knowledge. All approaches require extensive time and financial investment to develop and maintain true partnerships. Conclusions This qualitative study is the first to systematically synthesise experts’ perspectives and experiences in a comparison of collaborative research approaches. This work contributes to developing a shared understanding of collaborative research approaches to facilitate conceptual clarity in use, reporting, indexing and communication among researchers, trainees, knowledge users and stakeholders to advance IKT and implementation science.

The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network is a National Human Genome Research Institute–funded consortium engaged in the development of methods and best practices for using the electronic medical record as a tool for genomic research. Now in its sixth year and second funding cycle, and comprising nine research groups and a coordinating center, the network has played a major role in validating the concept that clinical data derived from electronic medical records can be used successfully for genomic research. Current work is advancing knowledge in multiple disciplines at the intersection of genomics and health-care informatics, particularly for electronic phenotyping, genome-wide association studies, genomic medicine implementation, and the ethical and regulatory issues associated with genomics research and returning results to study participants. Here, we describe the evolution, accomplishments, opportunities, and challenges of the network from its inception as a five-group consortium focused on genotype–phenotype associations for genomic discovery to its current form as a nine-group consortium pivoting toward the implementation of genomic medicine. Genet Med15 10, 761–771.