Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 30;7(1):217.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0879-2.

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

Affiliations

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

Femke Hoekstra et al. Syst Rev. .

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.

Keywords: Collaborative research partnerships; Community-based participatory research; Integrated knowledge translation; Knowledge synthesis; Multicenter study; Research outcomes and impact; Research principles and strategies; Stakeholder engagement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The three steps of the Coordinated Multicenter Team approach
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The guiding conceptual framework. All reviews will be centralized around principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts of research partnerships. These four domains will be assessed in terms of their research methods, methodologies and/or tools

References

    1. Drahota A, Meza RD, Brikho B, Naaf M, Estabillo JA, Gomez ED, Vejnoska SF, Dufek S, Stahmer AC, Aarons GA. Community-academic partnerships: a systematic review of the state of the literature and recommendations for future research. Milbank Q. 2016;94:163–214. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12184. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, Morris C, Russell DJ. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disability & Rehabilitation. 2015;37:1390–1400. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.963705. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsbert J, Bush PL, Henderson J, Greenhalgh T. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Millbank Quarterly. 2012;90:311–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goodman MS, Sanders Thompson VL. The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation and evaluation. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2017;7:486–491. doi: 10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Research . Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Ottawa: Canadian Institutes for Health Research; 2018.

Publication types