Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. RESULTS: From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature.

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.

First nations people's perspectives on barriers and supports for enhancing HPV vaccination: Foundations for sustainable, community-driven strategies.

OBJECTIVE: In Canada, Indigenous people have higher human papillomavirus (HPV) infection rates, lower screening rates for cervical cancer, and higher rates of invasive cancer, leading to worse cervical cancer-related outcomes than observed in non-Indigenous Canadian women. Lingering harms from European colonization drive these health inequities and create public health challenges. Policy guidance is needed to optimize HPV vaccination rates and, thereby, decrease the burden of HPV-related illness, including high-morbidity surgical procedures and chemo-radiotherapy. The Enhancing HPV Vaccination In First Nations Populations in Alberta (EHVINA) project focuses on First Nations, a diverse subset of recognized Indigenous people in Canada, and seeks to increase HPV vaccination among girls and boys living in First Nation communities. METHODS: Developing an effective strategy requires partnership with affected communities to better understand knowledge and perceptions about cancer, healthcare, and the HPV vaccine. A 2017 community gathering was convened to engage First Nations community members, health directors, and health services researchers in dialogue around unique barriers and supports to HPV vaccination in Alberta. Voices of community Elders, parents, health directors, and cancer survivors (n=24) are presented as qualitative evidence to help inform intervention design. RESULTS: Key findings from discussions indicate barriers to HPV vaccination include resource constraints and service infrastructure gaps, historical mistrust in healthcare systems, impacts of changing modes of communication, and community sensitivities regarding sexual health promotion. Supports were identified as strengthened inter-generational relationships in communities. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION: Ongoing dialogue and co-development of community-based strategies to increase HPV vaccine uptake are required. The identification of possible barriers to HPV vaccination in a Canadian Indigenous population contributes to limited global literature on this subject and may inform researchers and policy makers who work with Indigenous populations in other regions.