For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
61
references
 Top references
cited by
6
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      273
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Researchers’ and Research Users’ Experiences With and Reasons for Working Together in Spinal Cord Injury Research Partnerships: A Qualitative Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Research partnership approaches are becoming popular within spinal cord injury (SCI) health research system, providing opportunities to explore experiences of and learn from SCI research partnership champions. This study aimed to explore and describe SCI researchers’ and research users’ (RU’) experiences with and reasons for conducting and/or disseminating (health) research in partnership in order to gain more insight into potentially ways to build capacity for and foster change to support research partnerships within a health research system.

          Methods: Underpinned by a pragmatic perspective, ten semi-structured timeline interviews were conducted with researchers and RU who have experiences with SCI research partnerships. Interviews focused on experiences in participants’ lives that have led them to become a person who conducts and/or disseminates research in partnership. Data were analysed using narrative thematic analysis.

          Results: We identified three threads from participants’ stories: (1) seeing and valuing different perspectives, (2) inspirational role models, and (3) relational and personal aspect of research partnerships. We identified sub-threads related to experiences that participants draw on how they came to be a person who engage in (health) research partnerships, and sub-threads related to participants’ reasons for engaging in research partnerships. While most sub-threads were identified from both researchers’ and RU’ perspectives (eg, partnership successes and failures), some were unique for researchers (morally the right thing to do) or RU (advocating).

          Conclusion: Using a narrative and pragmatic approach, this study provided a new understanding of SCI researchers’ and RU’ partnership experiences over time. We found that participants’ research partnership experiences and motivations align with components of leadership theories. The findings from this study may be used to inform strategies and policy programs to build capacity for conducting and disseminating (health) research in partnership, within and beyond SCI research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)
          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
          Article 0 comments Cited 7865 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

            Per Torgeir E Nilsen (2015)
            Background Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Discussion Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). Summary This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.
            Article 0 comments Cited 820 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research

              Zoë Morris, Steven Wooding, Jonathan Grant (2011)
              This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.
              Article 0 comments Cited 531 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Health Policy Manag
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Int J Health Policy Manag
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Kerman University of Medical Sciences
                Title: International Journal of Health Policy and Management
                Publisher: Kerman University of Medical Sciences
                ISSN (Electronic): 2322-5939
                Publication date Collection: August 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 11 May 2021
                Volume: 11
                Issue: 8
                Pages: 1401-1412
                Affiliations
                1School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
                2International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
                3Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
                4Spinal Cord Injury Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Femke Hoekstra Email: femke.hoekstra@ 123456ubc.ca
                [# ]Members of the SCI Guiding Principles Consensus Panel are listed in the Acknowledgments.
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0068-652X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4389-5209
                Article
                DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.35
                PMC ID: 9808362
                PubMed ID: 34060273
                SO-VID: 9525bc9f-8e1e-4776-8532-001d77db3956
                Copyright © © 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 28 September 2020
                Date accepted : 28 March 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, References: 70, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Subject: Original Article

                Keywords: integrated knowledge translation,research partnerships,spinal cord injury,north america,capacity building,system change
                Data availability:
                Keywords: integrated knowledge translation, research partnerships, spinal cord injury, north america, capacity building, system change

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content273

                See all similar

                Cited by6

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors758

                See all reference authors