Characterizing research partnerships in child health research: A scoping review.

Research partnerships between researchers and knowledge users (KUs) in child health are understudied. This study examined the scope of KU engagement reported in published child health research, inclusive of health research partnership approaches and KU groups. Search strategies were developed by a health research librarian. Studies had to be in English, published since 2007, and were not excluded based on design. A two-step, multiple-person hybrid screening approach was used for study inclusion. Data on study and engagement characteristics, barriers and facilitators, and effects were extracted by one reviewer, with 10% verified by a second reviewer. Three hundred fifteen articles were included, with 243 (77.1%) published between 2019 and 2021. Community-based participatory research was the most common approach used (n = 122, 38.3%). Most studies (n = 235, 74.6%) engaged multiple KU groups (range 1-11), with children/youth, healthcare professionals, and parents/families being most frequently engaged. Reporting of barriers and facilitators and effects were variable, reported in 170 (53.8%) and 197 (62.5%) studies, respectively. Publications have increased exponentially over time. There is ongoing need to optimize evaluation and reporting consistency to facilitate growth in the field. Additional studies are needed to further our understanding of research partnerships in child health.

Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Involving research users in collaborative research approaches may increase the relevance and utility of research findings. Our primary objectives were to (i) identify and describe characteristics of Canadian federally and provincially funded health research projects that included research users and were funded between 2011 and 2019; (ii) explore changes over time; and (iii) compare characteristics between funder required and optional partnerships. METHODS: Retrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were projects that included research users. We analyzed publicly available project variables, and coded field and type of research using established classification systems. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and compared variables across three funding year blocks and partnership requirement status. RESULTS: We identified 1153 partnered health research projects, representing 137 fields of research and 37 types of research categories. Most projects included a required partnership (80%) and fell into health and social care services research (66%). Project length and funding amount increased from average of 24.8 months and $266 248 CAD in 2011-2013 to 31.6 months and $438 766 CAD in 2017-2019. There were significantly fewer required partnerships in 2017-2019. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2011 and 2019 Canadian federally and provincially funded partnered health research reflected primarily care services research across many fields. The observed breadth suggests that partnered health research approaches are applicable in many fields of research. Additional work to support partnered research across all types of health research (especially biomedical research) is warranted. The administration of larger grants that are funded for longer time periods may address previously identified concerns among research teams engaging in partnered research but may mean that fewer teams receive funding and risk delaying responding to time-sensitive data needs for users. Our process and findings can be used as a starting point for international comparison.

Engaging patients and the public in Health Research: experiences, perceptions and training needs among Manitoba health researchers.

BACKGROUND: The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba. METHODS: A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications. RESULTS: Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n = 43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n = 19, 44.2%), extensive (n = 14, 32.6%) or a little (n = 10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n = 38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n = 25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.

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

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.

Knowledge sharing between general and pediatric emergency departments: connections, barriers, and opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids (TREKK) is a national network aimed at improving emergency care for children by increasing collaborations and knowledge sharing between general and pediatric emergency departments (EDs). This study aimed to determine patterns of knowledge sharing within the network and to identify connections, barriers, and opportunities to obtaining pediatric information and training. METHODS: We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with health care professionals working in general EDs, purposefully sampled to represent connected and disconnected sites, based on two previous internal quantitative social network analyses (SNA). Data were analyzed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Participants included physicians (59%) and nurses (41%) from 18 general EDs in urban (68%) and rural/remote (32%) Canada. Health care professionals sought information both formally and informally, by using guidelines, talking to colleagues, and attending pediatric related training sessions. Network structure and processes were found to increase connections, support practice change, and promote standards of care. Participants identified personal, organizational and system level barriers to information and skill acquisition, including resources and personal costs, geography, dissemination, and time. Providing easy access to information at the point of care was promoted through enhancing content visibility and by embedding resources into local systems. There remains a need to share successful methods of local dissemination and implementation across the network, and to leverage local professional champions such as clinical nurse liaisons. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reinforce the critical role of ongoing network evaluation to improve the design and delivery of knowledge mobilization initiatives.

Publication of Randomized Clinical Trials in Pediatric Research: A Follow-up Study.

Importance: Nonpublication of research results in considerable research waste and compromises medical evidence and the safety of interventions in child health. Objective: To replicate, compare, and contrast the findings of a study conducted 15 years ago to determine the impact of ethical, editorial, and legislative mandates to register and publish findings. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, abstracts accepted to the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) meetings from May 2008 to May 2011 were screened in duplicate to identify phase 3 randomized clinical trials enrolling pediatric populations. Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of electronic databases in 2017. Study internal validity was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Jadad scale, and allocation concealment, and key variables (eg, trial design and study stage) were extracted. Associations between variables and publication status, time to publication, and publication bias were examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: Publication rate, trial registration rate, study quality, and risk of bias. Results: A total of 177 787 abstracts were indexed in the PAS database. Of these, 3132 were clinical trials, and 129 met eligibility criteria. Of these, 93 (72.1%; 95% CI, 53.8%-79.1%) were published. Compared with the previous analysis, the current analysis showed that fewer studies remained unpublished (183 of 447 [40.9%] vs 36 of 129 [27.9%], respectively; odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86; P = .008). Fifty-one of 129 abstracts (39.5%) were never registered. Abstracts with larger sample sizes (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.18; P = .01) and those registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (OR, 13.54; 95% CI, 4.78-38.46; P < .001) were more likely to be published. There were no differences in quality measures, risk of bias, or preference for positive results (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.58-4.38; P = .34) between published and unpublished studies. Mean (SE) time to publication following study presentation was 26.48 (1.97) months and did not differ between studies with significant and nonsignificant findings (25.61 vs 26.86 months; P = .93). Asymmetric distribution in the funnel plot (Egger regression, -2.77; P = .04) suggests reduced but ongoing publication bias among published studies. Overall, we observed a reduction in publication bias and in preference for positive findings and an increase in study size and publication rates over time. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest a promising trend toward a reduction in publication bias and nonpublication rates over time and positive impacts of trial registration. Further efforts are needed to ensure the entirety of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness.

Examining Early Childhood Health Outcomes of Children Born Late Preterm in Urban Manitoba.

Objective The late preterm population [34-36 weeks gestational age (GA)] is known to incur increased morbidity in the infancy stage compared to the population born at term (39-41 weeks GA). This study aimed to examine the health of these children during their early childhood years, with specific attention to the role of socioeconomic status. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, including all live-born children born at 34-36 and 39-41 weeks GA in urban Manitoba between 2000 and 2005 (n = 28,100). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of GA with early childhood morbidity after controlling for maternal, child and family level variables. Results The late preterm population was found to have significantly greater adjusted odds of lower respiratory tract infections in the preschool years (aOR = 1.59 [1.24, 2.04]) and asthma at school age (aOR = 1.33 [1.18, 1.47]) compared to the population born at term. The groups also differed in health care utilization at ages 4 (aOR = 1.19 [1.06,1.34]) and 7 years (aOR = 1.24 [1.09, 1.42]). Additional variables associated with poor outcomes suggest that social deprivation and GA simultaneously have a negative impact on early childhood development. Conclusions for Practice Adjustment for predictors of poor early childhood development, including socioeconomic status, were found to attenuate but not eliminate health differences between children born late preterm and children born at term. Poorer health outcomes that extend into childhood have implications for practice at the population level and suggest a need for further follow-up post discharge.