School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Health Services Integration, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Jan 1;6(1):27-42. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.71.
The current literature proposing criteria and guidelines for collaborative health system research often fails to differentiate between: (a) various types of partnerships, (b) collaborations formed for the specific purpose of developing a research proposal and those based on long-standing relationships, (c) researcher vs. decision-maker initiatives, and (d) the underlying drivers for the collaboration.
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 decision-makers and researchers who partnered on a Canadian major peer-reviewed grant proposal in 2013. Objectives of this exploration of participants' experiences with health system research collaboration were to: (a) explore perspectives and experience with research collaboration in general; (b) identify characteristics and strategies associated with effective partnerships; and (c) provide guidance for development of effective research partnerships. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed: transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using a general inductive approach.
Findings suggest that the common "two cultures" approach to research/decision-maker collaboration provides an inadequate framework for understanding the complexity of research partnerships. Many commonly-identified challenges to researcher/knowledge user (KU) collaboration are experienced as manageable by experienced research teams. Additional challenges (past experience with research and researchers; issues arising from previous collaboration; and health system dynamics) may be experienced in partnerships based on existing collaborations, and interact with partnership demands of time and communication. Current research practice may discourage KUs from engaging in collaborative research, in spite of strong beliefs in its potential benefits. Practical suggestions for supporting collaborations designed to respond to real-time health system challenges were identified.
Participants' experience with previous research activities, factors related to the established collaboration, and interpersonal, intra- and inter-organizational dynamics may present additional challenges to research partnerships built on existing collaboration. Differences between researchers and KUs may pose no greater challenges than differences among KUs (at various levels, and representing diverse perspectives and organizations) themselves. Effective "relationship brokering" is essential for meaningful collaboration.
目前提出的合作卫生系统研究标准和准则的文献往往未能区分以下内容：（a）各种类型的伙伴关系，（b）为制定研究提案而成立的合作关系与基于长期关系的合作关系，（c）研究人员与决策者倡议，以及（d）合作的潜在驱动力。
对 2013 年在加拿大一项主要同行评审赠款提案中合作的 16 名决策者和研究人员进行了定性访谈。本项对卫生系统研究合作参与者经验的探索旨在：（a）探讨对研究合作的总体看法和经验；（b）确定与有效伙伴关系相关的特征和策略；（c）为发展有效的研究伙伴关系提供指导。访谈进行了录音并转录：使用一般归纳方法对转录本进行了定性分析。
研究结果表明，常见的“两种文化”研究/决策者合作方法为理解研究伙伴关系的复杂性提供了一个不充分的框架。许多通常被认为是研究人员/知识使用者（KU）合作的挑战，对于有经验的研究团队来说是可以管理的。在基于现有合作的伙伴关系中，可能会遇到其他挑战（以往的研究和研究人员经验；先前合作产生的问题；以及卫生系统动态），并与合作伙伴对时间和沟通的需求相互作用。尽管对其潜在效益有强烈的信念，但目前的研究实践可能会阻碍 KU 参与合作研究。为支持旨在应对实时卫生系统挑战的合作关系，确定了一些实用建议。
参与者对以往研究活动的经验、与既定合作关系相关的因素以及人际、组织内和组织间动态因素，可能会给基于现有合作的研究伙伴关系带来额外的挑战。研究人员和 KU 之间的差异可能并不比 KU 之间（在各个层面上，代表不同的观点和组织）的差异更大。有效的“关系中介”对于有意义的合作至关重要。
