Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro).

BACKGROUND: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. METHODS: This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. RESULTS: The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. CONCLUSION: Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production-including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research-to study, adapt, and apply.

Understanding how and under what circumstances integrated knowledge translation works for people engaged in collaborative research: metasynthesis of IKTRN casebooks.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Interaction and collaboration between researchers, patients/public, clinicians, managers and policy-makers are necessary to enhance the relevance and use of research, improve planning, and optimize healthcare delivery and outcomes. The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN) published four casebooks from 2019 to 2021, describing varied approaches to research co-production. Our aim was to examine the case studies to extend existing theoretical and empirical perspectives about how co-production works. METHODS: We used metasynthesis, a qualitative research design that includes seven iterative steps (clarify the purpose, delineate the case studies included, extract and code the data, derive themes from the coded data, determine the relationships of the themes to research co-production, synthesize the concepts, and build theory). RESULTS: A total of 35 cases was reviewed. The aggregate findings of this metasynthesis identified multiple contextual and process factors, barriers, and facilitators that influence integrated knowledge translation (IKT), and a range of IKT activities that increased the likelihood of success of co-production during research. In comparing the findings from the metasynthesis with existing literature, we found a number of consistencies, but also new information about barriers, facilitators, IKT activities and outcomes, thereby adding to our understanding about factors that influence co-production. CONCLUSIONS: This metasynthesis provided concrete examples to optimize co-produced clinical and health system research. More research is needed to fully understand how to overcome some challenging modifiable barriers, establish relationships, facilitate communication, overcome power differentials and create processes for knowledge-users working across boundaries (clinical practice and research) to stay engaged and participate fully in research endeavours.

Diagnostic test accuracy of screening tools for post-traumatic stress disorder among refugees and asylum seekers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Refugees and asylum seekers often experience traumatic events resulting in a high prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Undiagnosed PTSD can have detrimental effects on resettlement outcomes. Immigration medical exams provide an opportunity to screen for mental health conditions in refugee and asylum seeker populations and provide links to timely mental health care. Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for PTSD in refugee and asylum seeker populations. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL up to 29 September 2022. We included cohort-selection or cross-sectional study designs that assessed PTSD screening tools in refugee or asylum seeker populations of all ages. All reference standards were eligible for inclusion, with a clinical interview considered the gold standard. We selected studies and extracted diagnostic test accuracy data in duplicate. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were addressed using QUADAS-2. We meta-analyzed findings using a bivariate random-effects model. We partnered with a patient representative and a clinical psychiatrist to inform review development and conduct. Results: Our review includes 28 studies (4,373 participants) capturing 16 different screening tools. Nine of the 16 tools were developed specifically for refugee populations. Most studies assessed PTSD in adult populations, but three included studies focused on detecting PTSD in children. Nine studies looked at the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ) with diagnostic cut-off points ranging from 1.17 to 2.5. Meta-analyses revealed a summary point sensitivity of 86.6% (95%CI 0.791; 0.917) and specificity of 78.9% (95%CI 0.639; 0.888) for these studies. After evaluation, we found it appropriate to pool other screening tools (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, the Impact of Event Scale, and the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale) with the HTQ. The area under the curve for this model was 79.4%, with a pooled sensitivity of 86.2% (95%CI 0.759; 0.925) and a specificity of 72.2% (95%CI 0.616; 0.808). Conclusions: Our review identified several screening tools that perform well among refugees and asylum seekers, but no single tool was identified as being superior. The Refugee Health Screener holds promise as a practical instrument for use in immigration medical examinations because it supports the identification of PTSD, depression, and anxiety across diverse populations. Future research should consider tool characteristics beyond sensitivity and specificity to facilitate implementation in immigration medical exams. Registration: Open Science Framework: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PHNJV.

Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework.

BACKGROUND: Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production-Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)-and outline our field test of this approach. METHODS: Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. DISCUSSION: This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders.

Exploring the frontiers of research co-production: the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network concept papers.

Research co-production is about doing research with those who use it. This approach to research has been receiving increasing attention from research funders, academic institutions, researchers and even the public as a means of optimising the relevance, usefulness, usability and use of research findings, which together, the argument goes, produces greater and more timely impact. The papers in this cross BMC journal collection raise issues about research co-production that, to date, have not been fully considered and suggest areas for future research for advancing the science and practice of research co-production. These papers address some gaps in the literature, make connections between subfields and provide varied perspectives from researchers and knowledge users.

Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation.

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.