Suppr超能文献

研究伙伴关系综述:一种协调的多中心团队方法。

A review protocol on research partnerships: a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach.

机构信息

School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada.

International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 30;7(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0879-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Research partnership approaches, in which researchers and stakeholders work together collaboratively on a research project, are an important component of research, knowledge translation, and implementation. Despite their growing use, a comprehensive understanding of the principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts of different types of research partnerships is lacking. Generating high-quality evidence in this area is challenging due to the breadth and diversity of relevant literature. We established a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to identify and synthesize the partnership literature and better understand the evidence base. This review protocol outlines an innovative approach to locating, reviewing, and synthesizing the literature on research partnerships.

METHODS

Five reviews pertaining to research partnerships are proposed. The Coordinated Multicenter Team developed a consensus-driven conceptual framework to guide the reviews. First, a review of reviews will comparatively describe and synthesize key domains (principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts) for different research partnership approaches, within and beyond health (e.g., integrated knowledge translation, participatory action research). After identifying commonly used search terminology, three complementary scoping reviews will describe and synthesize these domains in the health research partnership literature. Finally, an umbrella review will amalgamate and reflect on the collective findings and identify research gaps and future directions. We will develop a collaborative review methodology, comprising search strategy efficiencies, terminology standardization, and the division of screening, extraction, and synthesis to optimize feasibility and literature capture. A series of synthesis and scoping manuscripts will emerge from this Coordinated Multicenter Team approach.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensively describing and differentiating research partnership terminology and its domains will address well-documented gaps in the literature. These efforts will contribute to and improve the quality, conduct, and reporting of research partnership literature. The collaborative review methodology will help identify and establish common terms, leverage efficiencies (e.g., expertise, experience, search and protocol design, resources) and optimize research feasibility and quality. Our approach allows for enhanced scope and inclusivity of all research user groups and domains, thereby contributing uniquely to the literature. This multicenter, efficiency and quality-focused approach may serve to inspire researchers across the globe in addressing similar domain challenges, as exist in this rapidly expanding field.

摘要

背景

研究伙伴关系方法,即研究人员和利益相关者共同合作开展研究项目,是研究、知识转化和实施的重要组成部分。尽管这种方法的使用越来越多,但对于不同类型的研究伙伴关系的原则、策略、结果和影响缺乏全面的理解。由于相关文献的广泛多样性,在这一领域生成高质量证据具有挑战性。我们采用协调多中心团队方法来确定和综合伙伴关系文献,以更好地了解证据基础。本综述方案概述了一种创新方法,用于定位、审查和综合关于研究伙伴关系的文献。

方法

提出了五项关于研究伙伴关系的综述。协调多中心团队制定了一个共识驱动的概念框架来指导综述。首先,对综述的综述将比较描述和综合不同研究伙伴关系方法的关键领域(原则、策略、结果和影响),包括健康领域内外的方法(例如,综合知识转化、参与式行动研究)。在确定常用的搜索术语后,将进行三项互补的范围综述,以描述和综合健康研究伙伴关系文献中的这些领域。最后,进行伞式综述,综合和反思集体研究结果,并确定研究差距和未来方向。我们将制定一种协作式综述方法,包括搜索策略效率、术语标准化以及筛选、提取和综合的分工,以优化可行性和文献获取。这种协调多中心团队方法将产生一系列综合和范围综述手稿。

讨论

全面描述和区分研究伙伴关系术语及其领域将解决文献中记录良好的差距。这些努力将有助于提高研究伙伴关系文献的质量、实施和报告。协作式综述方法将有助于确定和建立共同术语,利用效率(例如,专业知识、经验、搜索和协议设计、资源)并优化研究的可行性和质量。我们的方法允许所有研究用户群体和领域的范围和包容性增强,从而为文献做出独特贡献。这种多中心、注重效率和质量的方法可能会激励全球研究人员解决该领域类似的挑战,就像在这个快速发展的领域中存在的挑战一样。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1e39/6267881/9c411563f0ff/13643_2018_879_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
A review protocol on research partnerships: a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach.
Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 30;7(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0879-2.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
6
Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 18;18(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9.
7
Evaluating the impact of a network of research partnerships: a longitudinal multiple case study protocol.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Nov 12;16(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0377-y.

引用本文的文献

4
Characterizing research partnerships in child health research: A scoping review.
J Child Health Care. 2025 Sep;29(3):698-715. doi: 10.1177/13674935241231346. Epub 2024 Feb 6.
5
A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Dec 22;21(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-00958-y.
7
Integrated knowledge translation guidelines for trainees in health research: an environmental scan.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Jul 14;21(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01024-3.
8
Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Jan 5;21(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00937-9.

本文引用的文献

3
Defining Integrated Knowledge Translation and Moving Forward: A Response to Recent Commentaries.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 May 1;6(5):299-300. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.15.
4
The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 1;6(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x.
5
Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews.
Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 18;6(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3.
6
Factors That Impact the Success of Interorganizational Health Promotion Collaborations: A Scoping Review.
Am J Health Promot. 2018 May;32(4):1095-1109. doi: 10.1177/0890117117710875. Epub 2017 Jun 6.
7
The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation.
Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep;7(3):486-491. doi: 10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z.
8
Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist.
Res Synth Methods. 2017 Mar;8(1):92-108. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1229. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
9
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
10
Measurement and evaluation practices of factors that contribute to effective health promotion collaboration functioning: A scoping review.
Eval Program Plann. 2017 Apr;61:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.013. Epub 2016 Nov 22.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验