Understanding how and under what circumstances integrated knowledge translation works for people engaged in collaborative research: metasynthesis of IKTRN casebooks.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Interaction and collaboration between researchers, patients/public, clinicians, managers and policy-makers are necessary to enhance the relevance and use of research, improve planning, and optimize healthcare delivery and outcomes. The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN) published four casebooks from 2019 to 2021, describing varied approaches to research co-production. Our aim was to examine the case studies to extend existing theoretical and empirical perspectives about how co-production works. METHODS: We used metasynthesis, a qualitative research design that includes seven iterative steps (clarify the purpose, delineate the case studies included, extract and code the data, derive themes from the coded data, determine the relationships of the themes to research co-production, synthesize the concepts, and build theory). RESULTS: A total of 35 cases was reviewed. The aggregate findings of this metasynthesis identified multiple contextual and process factors, barriers, and facilitators that influence integrated knowledge translation (IKT), and a range of IKT activities that increased the likelihood of success of co-production during research. In comparing the findings from the metasynthesis with existing literature, we found a number of consistencies, but also new information about barriers, facilitators, IKT activities and outcomes, thereby adding to our understanding about factors that influence co-production. CONCLUSIONS: This metasynthesis provided concrete examples to optimize co-produced clinical and health system research. More research is needed to fully understand how to overcome some challenging modifiable barriers, establish relationships, facilitate communication, overcome power differentials and create processes for knowledge-users working across boundaries (clinical practice and research) to stay engaged and participate fully in research endeavours.

Patients' engagement in primary care research: a case study in a Canadian context.

Patient engagement in primary care research is an increasingly common requirement, as it helps make research more relevant to patients and therefore more valuable. However, there is limited evidence about the outcomes on engagement and actually how it affects research. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), which in 2016 funded Ontario's INSPIRE-PHC centre of excellence and its Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC). PERC conducted an online survey of the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patients to guide their research. We found that patient partners (PPs) were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided. They were more involved in early stages of their research projects than in ongoing research activities. PPs valued their experience and also felt they had improved the research process and outcomes. This case study showed how PPs perceive their roles, but a more diverse group of PPs might have more differences in their experience. Background Patient engagement in primary care research is increasing and is now an expectation in many countries and funding agencies. In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that patients be included as partners to guide the research process. Ontario's Patient Engagement Resource Centre (PERC) was established in 2016 by the INNOVATIONS STRENGTHENING PRIMARY HEALTH CARE THROUGH RESEARCH (INSPIRE-PHC), one of 12 centres of excellence in the province funded under the CIHR's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) initiative. PERC's mission is to support the authentic engagement of patients in primary care research. The present case study examines patients' experience of engagement in INSPIRE-PHC research studies. Methods PERC conducted a web-based evaluation survey across the three INSPIRE-PHC studies that engaged patient partners (PPs). We used data collection tools developed by McMaster University (the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET)) and the Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (Ways of Engaging- ENgagement ACtivity Tool (WE-ENACT)) to assess patient experience and areas of involvement. These included both closed- and open-ended questions. Results The quantitative data showed that PPs were positive about their experience during research meetings, the value of collaboration, and the support that was provided to facilitate engagement. Most of them were highly involved in the initial stages of their research projects but much less involved in operational activities. The qualitative findings showed that, overall, PPs valued their experience, felt prepared to contribute and that their contributions were welcomed. In particular, they considered that they had improved the research process and outcomes. The majority also reported that they had learned from the experience and found it valuable. Conclusions This case study shows that patients engaged in three primary care research studies found the experience to be positive and felt that they had contributed to the research. This study adds to the literature on the evaluation of patient engagement in primary health care research. However, a study of a more diverse sample of PPs might elucidate differences in experience that could enrich future patient engagement activities.