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.

Engaging people with lived experience on advisory councils of a national not-for-profit: an integrated knowledge translation case study of Heart & Stroke Mission Critical Area Councils.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada transformed its approach to organizational strategic planning and priority-setting. The goal was to generate impact from bench to bedside to community, to improve the health of Canadians. It engaged researchers, clinician scientists, health systems leaders, and community members including people with lived experience (PWLE) on six Mission Critical Area (MCA) councils, each of which was co-chaired by a researcher or clinician scientist and a person with lived experience. Together, council members were tasked with providing advice to Heart & Stroke about the most relevant and impactful priorities of our time. The aim of this research was to explore the value of the MCA councils to Heart & Stroke, and to council members themselves. The research questions focused on understanding the process of managing and participating on the councils, the challenges and outcomes. METHODS:  Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, we conducted a case study with developmental evaluation over a 2-year time period (2018-2020). We collected qualitative data from various sources (Heart & Stroke team responsible for managing the councils, council co-chairs, council members, and key informants). We collected documents and analysed them for contextual background. RESULTS:  Participants noted that the MCA councils continuously evolved over the 2 years in various ways: from an uncertain direction to a concrete one, better integrating the voice of PWLE, and increased cohesiveness within and across MCA councils. This evolution was achieved in parallel with successes and challenges at three levels: the MCA councils and its members, Heart & Stroke, and Canadians. The MCA councils were disbanded in 2020, yet learnings, developments, initiatives and established partnerships remain as their legacy. CONCLUSIONS:  Heart & Stroke's intended objectives for the MCA councils, to promote engagement and dialogue among community members including PWLE, clinician scientists, and researchers, and to provide advice into Heart & Stroke's strategic renewal process, were achieved. This collaborative structure and process for PWLE engagement within a community of multidisciplinary clinician scientists and researchers is possible yet requires flexibility, commitment to stakeholder relationship management, and considerable resources. These findings may be helpful for other not-for-profit and funding organizations interested in engaging the public and other stakeholders into their organizational activities.

Evaluating the implementation of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management program using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent chronic disease that requires comprehensive approaches to manage; it accounts for a significant portion of Canada's annual healthcare spending. Interprofessional teams are effective at providing chronic disease management that meets the needs of patients. As part of an ongoing initiative, a COPD management program, the Best Care COPD program was implemented in a primary care setting. The objectives of this research were to determine site-specific factors facilitating or impeding the implementation of a COPD program in a new setting, while evaluating the implementation strategy used. METHODS: A qualitative case study was conducted using interviews, focus groups, document analysis, and site visits. Data were deductively analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to assess the impact of each of its constructs on Best Care COPD program implementation at this site. RESULTS: Eleven CFIR constructs were determined to meaningfully affect implementation. Five were identified as the most influential in the implementation process. Cosmopolitanism (partnerships with other organizations), networks and communication (amongst program providers), engaging (key individuals to participate in program implementation), design quality and packaging (of the program), and reflecting and evaluating (throughout the implementation process). A peer-to-peer implementation strategy included training of registered respiratory therapists (RRT) as certified respiratory educators and the establishment of a communication network among RRTs to discuss experiences, collectively solve problems, and connect with the program lead. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a practical example of the various factors that facilitated the implementation of the Best Care COPD program. It also demonstrates the potential of using a peer-to-peer implementation strategy. Focusing on these factors will be useful for informing the continued spread and success of the Best Care COPD program and future implementation of other chronic care programs.

Identifying competencies for integrated knowledge translation: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Considerable progress has been made to advance the field of knowledge translation to address the knowledge-to-action gap in health care; however, there remains a growing concern that misalignments persist between research being conducted and the issues faced by knowledge users, such as clinicians and health policy makers, who make decisions in the health care context. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a collaborative research model that has shown promise in addressing these concerns. It takes advantage of the unique and shared competencies amongst researchers and knowledge users to ensure relevance of the research process and its outcomes. To date, core competencies have already been identified to facilitate training in knowledge translation more generally but they have yet to be prioritized for IKT more specifically. The primary aim of this study was to recruit a group of researchers and knowledge users to identify and prioritize core competencies for researchers and knowledge users to engage with IKT. METHODS: We recruited health care knowledge users (KUs) and researchers with experience and knowledge of IKT for a quantitative, cross-sectional study. We employed a modified Delphi approach consisting of three e-survey rounds to establish consensus on competencies important to IKT for KUs and researchers based on mean rating of importance and agreement between participants. RESULTS: Nineteen (73%) of the initial 26 participants were researchers (response rate = 41% in the first round; retention in subsequent rounds > 80%). Participants identified a total of 46 competencies important for IKT (18 competencies for KUs, 28 competencies for researchers) under 3 broad domains. Technical research skills were deemed extremely important for researchers, while both groups require teamwork and knowledge translation skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insight into distinct and overlapping IKT competencies for KUs and researchers. Future work could focus on how these can be further negotiated and contextualized for a wide range of IKT contexts, projects and teams. Greater attention could also be paid to establishing competencies of the entire team to support the research co-production process.

Same knee, different goals: patients and surgeons have different priorities related to ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The priorities of patients should be shared by those treating them. Patients and surgeons are likely to have different priorities surrounding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), with implications for shared decision-making and patient education. The optimal surgical approach for ACLR is constantly evolving, and the magnitude of treatment effect necessary for evidence to change surgical practice is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine (1) the priorities of surgeons and patients when making decisions regarding ACLR and (2) the magnitude of reduction in ACLR graft failure risk that orthopaedic surgeons require before changing practice. METHODS: This study followed a cross-sectional survey design. Three distinct electronic surveys were administered to pre-operative ACLR patients, post-operative ACLR patients, and orthopaedic surgeons. Patients and surgeons were asked about the importance of various outcomes and considerations pertaining to ACLR. Surgeons were asked scenario-based questions regarding changing practice for ACLR based on new research. RESULTS: Surgeons were more likely to prioritize outcomes related to the surgical knee itself, whereas patients were more likely to prioritize outcomes related to their daily lifestyle and activities. Knee instability and risk of re-injury were unanimous top priorities among all three groups. A mean relative risk reduction in ACLR graft failure of about 50% was required by orthopaedic surgeons to change practice regardless of the type of change, or patient risk profile. CONCLUSION: There are discrepancies between the priorities of surgeons and patients, and orthopaedic surgeons appear resistant to changing practice for ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field.

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 dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

BACKGROUND: Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. DEBATE: Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

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.

Sustainability of public health interventions: where are the gaps?

The current scholarly focus on implementation science is meant to ensure that public health interventions are effectively embedded in their settings. Part of this conversation includes understanding how to support the sustainability of beneficial interventions so that limited resources are maximised, long-term public health outcomes are realised, community support is not lost, and ethical research standards are maintained. However, the concept of sustainability is confusing because of variations in terminology and a lack of agreed upon measurement frameworks, as well as methodological challenges. This commentary explores the challenges around the sustainability of public health interventions, with particular attention to definitions and frameworks like Normalization Process Theory and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework. We propose one important recommendation to direct attention to the sustainability of public health interventions, that is, the use of theoretically informed approaches to guide the design, development, implementation, evaluation and sustainability of public health interventions.

Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model.

The potential use, influence and impact of health research is seldom fully realised. This stubborn problem has caused burgeoning global interest in research aiming to address the implementation 'gap' and factors inhibiting the uptake of scientific evidence. Scholars and practitioners have questioned the nature of evidence used and required for healthcare, highlighting the complex ways in which knowledge is formed, shared and modified in practice and policy. This has led to rapid expansion, expertise and innovation in the field of knowledge mobilisation and funding for experimentation into the effectiveness of different knowledge mobilisation models. One approach gaining prominence involves stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, service users, policy-makers, managers and carers) in the co-production, and application, of knowledge for practice, policy and research (frequently termed integrated knowledge translation in Canada). Its popularity stems largely from its potential to address dilemmas inherent in the implementation of knowledge generated using more reductionist methods. However, despite increasing recognition, demands for co-produced research to illustrate its worth are becoming pressing while the means to do so remain challenging. This is due not only to the diversity of approaches to co-production and their application, but also to the ways through which different stakeholders conceptualise, measure, reward and use research. While research co-production can lead to demonstrable benefits such as policy or practice change, it may also have more diffuse and subtle impact on relationships, knowledge sharing, and in engendering culture shifts and research capacity-building. These relatively intangible outcomes are harder to measure and require new emphases and tools. This opinion paper uses six Canadian and United Kingdom case studies to explore the principles and practice of co-production and illustrate how it can influence interactions between research, policy and practice, and benefit diverse stakeholders. In doing so, we identify a continuum of co-production processes. We propose and illustrate the use of a new 'social model of impact' and framework to capture multi-layered and potentially transformative impacts of co-produced research. We make recommendations for future directions in research co-production and impact measurement.

Evaluating the impact of a network of research partnerships: a longitudinal multiple case study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Conducting and/or disseminating research together with community stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, community organisations, patients) is a promising approach to generating relevant and impactful research. However, creating strong and successful partnerships between researchers and stakeholders is complex. Thus far, an in-depth understanding of how, when and why these research partnerships are successful is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate and explain the outcomes and impacts of a national network of researchers and community stakeholders over time in order to gain a better understanding of how, when and why research partnerships are successful (or not). METHODS: This longitudinal multiple case study will use data from the Canadian Disability Participation Project, a large national network of researchers and community stakeholders working together to enhance community participation among people with physical disabilities. To maximise the impact of research conducted within the Canadian Disability Participation Project network, researchers are supported in developing and implementing knowledge translation plans. The components of the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance) will guide this study. Data will be collected from different perspectives (researchers, stakeholders) using different methods (logs, surveys, timeline interviews) at different time points during the years 2018-2021. A combination of data analysis methods, including network analysis and cluster analysis, will be used to study the RE-AIM components. Qualitative data will be used to supplement the findings and further understand the variation in the RE-AIM components over time and across groups. DISCUSSION: The outcomes, impacts and processes of conducting and disseminating research together with community stakeholders will be extensively studied. The longitudinal design of this study will provide a unique opportunity to examine research partnerships over time and understand the underlying processes using a variety of innovative research methods (e.g. network analyses, timeline interviews). This study will contribute to opening the 'black box' of doing successful and impactful health research in partnership with community stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/kj5xa/ .

Effectively engaging stakeholders and the public in developing violence prevention messages.

BACKGROUND: Preventing family violence requires that stakeholders and the broader public be involved in developing evidence-based violence prevention strategies. However, gaps exist in between what we know (knowledge), what we do (action), and the structures supporting practice (policy). DISCUSSION: We discuss the broad challenge of mobilizing knowledge-for-action in family violence, with a primary focus on the issue of how stakeholders and the public can be effectively engaged when developing and communicating evidence-based violence prevention messages. We suggest that a comprehensive approach to stakeholder and public engagement in developing violence prevention messages includes: 1) clear and consistent messaging; 2) identifying and using, as appropriate, lessons from campaigns that show evidence of reducing specific types of violence; and 3) evidence-informed approaches for communicating to specific groups. Components of a comprehensive approach must take into account the available research evidence, implementation feasibility, and the context-specific nature of family violence. While strategies exist for engaging stakeholders and the public in messaging about family violence prevention, knowledge mobilization must be informed by evidence, dialogue with stakeholders, and proactive media strategies. This paper will be of interest to public health practitioners or others involved in planning and implementing violence prevention programs because it highlights what is known about the issue, potential solutions, and implementation considerations.

Improving safety culture in hospitals: Facilitators and barriers to implementation of Systemic Falls Investigative Method (SFIM).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the facilitators and barriers to implementation of the Systemic Falls Investigative Method (SFIM) on selected hospital units. DESIGN: A cross-sectional explanatory mixed methods design was used to converge results from a standardized safety culture survey with themes that emerged from interviews and focus groups. Findings were organized by six elements of the Ottawa Model of Research Use framework. SETTING: A geriatric rehabilitation unit of an acute care hospital and a neurological unit of a rehabilitation hospital were selected purposefully due to the high frequency of falls. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital staff who took part in: surveys (n = 39), interviews (n = 10) and focus groups (n = 12), and 38 people who were interviewed during falls investigations: fallers, family, unit staff and hospital management. INTERVENTION: Implementation of the SFIM to investigate fall occurrences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Percent of positive responses on the Modified Stanford Patient Safety Culture Survey Instrument converged with qualitative themes on facilitators and barriers for intervention implementation. RESULTS: Both hospital units had an overall poor safety culture which hindered intervention implementation. Facilitators were hospital accreditation, strong emphasis on patient safety, infrastructure and dedicated champions. Barriers included heavy workloads, lack of time, lack of resources and poor communication. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of SFIM requires regulatory and organizational support, committed frontline staff and allocation of resources to identify active causes and latent contributing factors to falls. System-wide adjustments show promise for promotion of safety culture in hospitals where falls happen regularly.

Research impact of systems-level long-term care research: a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Traditional reporting of research outcomes and impacts, which tends to focus on research product publications and grant success, does not capture the value, some contributions, or the complexity of research projects. The purpose of this study was to understand the contributions of five systems-level research projects as they were unfolding at the Bruyère Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation (CLRI) in long-term care (LTC) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The research questions were, (1) How are partnerships with research end-users (policymakers, administrators and other public/private organisations) characterised? (2) How have interactions with the CLRI Management Committee and Steering Committee influenced the development of research products? (3) In what way have other activities, processes, unlinked actors or organisations been influenced by the research project activities? METHODS: The study was guided by Kok and Schuit's concept of research impacts, using a multiple case study design. Data were collected through focus groups and interviews with research teams, a management and a steering committee, research user partners, and unlinked actors. Documents were collected and analysed for contextual background. RESULTS: Cross-case analysis revealed four major themes: (1) Benefits and Perceived Tensions: Working with Partners; (2) Speaking with the LTC Community: Interactions with the CLRI Steering Committee; (3) The Knowledge Broker: Interactions with the Management Committee; and (4) All Forms of Research Contributions. CONCLUSIONS: Most contributions were focused on interactions with networks and stimulating important conversations in the province about LTC issues. These contributions were well-supported by the Steering and Management Committees' research-to-action platform, which can be seen as a type of knowledge brokering model. It was also clear that researcher-user partnerships were beneficial and important.

Managing Knowledge in Transitions: Experiences of Health Care Leaders in Succession Planning.

Effective and efficient methods of succession planning are integral to the success of organizations across the health care system. We explored current health organizations' senior leadership transition processes. Participants were in senior level leadership and decision-making positions in hospitals within Ontario, Canada. Most of the participants did not have formal transition plans and instead relied on the human resources department to plan for succession. We discuss these processes through three themes: (1) preplanning for a transition, (2) the transition process, and (3) barriers to successful transitions. The results of this study confirm the ideas that leadership style combined with experience and personal preferences dominates a leader's onboarding process. Like any complex organizational process, transitions ought to be iterative, flexible, and in line with the needs of individuals, the organizations, and the context. This research also provides further analysis around the broader contextual and cultural issues inherent to succession planning.

Moving towards a new vision: implementation of a public health policy intervention.

BACKGROUND: Public health systems in Canada have undergone significant policy renewal over the last decade in response to threats to the public's health, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome. There is limited research on how public health policies have been implemented or what has influenced their implementation. This paper explores policy implementation in two exemplar public health programs -chronic disease prevention and sexually-transmitted infection prevention - in Ontario, Canada. It examines public health service providers', managers' and senior managements' perspectives on the process of implementation of the Ontario Public Health Standards 2008 and factors influencing implementation. METHODS: Public health staff from six health units representing rural, remote, large and small urban settings were included. We conducted 21 focus groups and 18 interviews between 2010 (manager and staff focus groups) and 2011 (senior management interviews) involving 133 participants. Research assistants coded transcripts and researchers reviewed these; the research team discussed and resolved discrepancies. To facilitate a breadth of perspectives, several team members helped interpret the findings. An integrated knowledge translation approach was used, reflected by the inclusion of academics as well as decision-makers on the team and as co-authors. RESULTS: Front line service providers often were unaware of the new policies but managers and senior management incorporated them in operational and program planning. Some participants were involved in policy development or provided feedback prior to their launch. Implementation was influenced by many factors that aligned with Greenhalgh and colleagues' empirically-based Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations Framework. Factors and related components that were most clearly linked to the OPHS policy implementation were: attributes of the innovation itself; adoption by individuals; diffusion and dissemination; the outer context - interorganizational networks and collaboration; the inner setting - implementation processes and routinization; and, linkage at the design and implementation stage. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors influenced public health policy implementation. Results provide empirical support for components of Greenhalgh et al's framework and suggest two additional components - the role of external organizational collaborations and partnerships as well as planning processes in influencing implementation. These are important to consider by government and public health organizations when promoting new or revised public health policies as they evolve over time. A successful policy implementation process in Ontario has helped to move public health towards the new vision.

Moving knowledge about family violence into public health policy and practice: a mixed method study of a deliberative dialogue.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand scientific evidence in light of the context within which it will be used. Deliberative dialogues are a promising strategy that can be used to meet this evidence interpretation challenge. METHODS: We evaluated a deliberative dialogue held by a transnational violence prevention network. The deliberative dialogue included researchers and knowledge user partners of the Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network and was incorporated into a biennial full-team meeting. The dialogue included pre- and post-meeting activities, as well as deliberations embedded within the meeting agenda. The deliberations included a preparatory plenary session, small group sessions and a synthesizing plenary. The challenge addressed through the process was how to mobilize research to orient health and social service systems to prevent family violence and its consequences. The deliberations focused on the challenge, potential solutions for addressing it and implementation factors. Using a mixed-methods approach, data were collected via questionnaires, meeting minutes, dialogue documents and follow-up telephone interviews. RESULTS: Forty-four individuals (all known to each other and from diverse professional roles, settings and countries) participated in the deliberative dialogue. Ten of the 12 features of the deliberative dialogue were rated favourably by all respondents. The mean behavioural intention score was 5.7 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), suggesting that many participants intended to use what they learned in their future decision-making. Interviews provided further insight into what might be done to facilitate the use of research in the violence prevention arena. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that participants will use dialogue learnings to influence practice and policy change. Deliberative dialogues may be a viable strategy for collaborative sensemaking of research related to family violence prevention, and other public health topics.

A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research.

BACKGROUND: Network partnerships between public health and third sector organisations are being used to address the complexities of population level social determinants of health and health equity. An understanding of how these networks use research and knowledge is crucial to effective network design and outcome evaluation. There is, however, a gap in the literature regarding how public health networks use research and knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to report on the qualitative findings from a larger study that explored (1) the experiences of public health networks with using research and knowledge, and (2) the perceived benefits of using research and knowledge. METHODS: A multiple case study approach framed this study. Focus group data were collected from participants through a purposive sample of four public health networks. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis and Nvivo software supported data management. Each network had the opportunity to participate in data interpretation. RESULTS: All networks used published research studies and other types of knowledge to accomplish their work, although in each network research and knowledge played different but complementary roles. Neither research nor other types of knowledge were privileged, and an approach that blended varied knowledge types was typically used. Network experiences with research and knowledge produced individual and collective benefits. A novel finding was that research and knowledge were both important in shaping network function. CONCLUSIONS: This study shifts the focus in the current literature from public health departments to the community setting where public health collaborates with a broader spectrum of actors to ameliorate health inequities. Both formal research and informal knowledge were found to be important for collaborative public health networks. Examining the benefits of research and knowledge use within public health networks may help us to better understand the relationships among process (the collaborative use of research and knowledge), structure (networks) and outcomes (benefits).

Strengthening population health interventions: developing the CollaboraKTion Framework for Community-Based Knowledge Translation.

BACKGROUND: Much of the research and theorising in the knowledge translation (KT) field has focused on clinical settings, providing little guidance to those working in community settings. In this study, we build on previous research in community-based KT by detailing the theory driven and empirically-informed CollaboraKTion framework. METHODS: A case study design and ethnographic methods were utilised to gain an in-depth understanding of the processes for conducting a community-based KT study as a means to distilling the CollaboraKTion framework. Drawing on extensive field notes describing fieldwork observations and interactions as well as evidence from the participatory research and KT literature, we detail the processes and steps undertaken in this community-based KT study as well as their rationale and the challenges encountered. In an effort to build upon existing knowledge, Kitson and colleagues' co-KT framework, which provides guidance for conducting KT aimed at addressing population-level health, was applied as a coding structure to inform the current analysis. This approach was selected because it (1) supported the application of an existing community-based KT framework to empirical data and (2) provided an opportunity to contribute to the theory and practice gaps in the community-based KT literature through an inductively derived empirical example. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that community-based KT is an iterative process that can be viewed as comprising five overarching processes: (1) contacting and connecting; (2) deepening understandings; (3) adapting and applying the knowledge base; (4) supporting and evaluating continued action; and (5) transitioning and embedding as well as several key elements within each of these processes (e.g. building on existing knowledge, establishing partnerships). These empirically informed theory advancements in KT and participatory research traditions are summarised in the CollaboraKTion framework. We suggest that community-based KT researchers place less emphasis on enhancing uptake of specific interventions and focus on collaboratively identifying and creating changes to the contextual factors that influence health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The CollaboraKTion framework can be used to guide the development, implementation and evaluation of contextually relevant, evidence-informed initiatives aimed at improving population health, amid providing a foundation to leverage future research and practice in this emergent KT area.