PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.
RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.
RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.
摘要：
背景：联合生产是一种合作的准备方法，plan,行为,并将研究应用于那些将使用或受研究影响的人(知识用户)。我们的知识用户和研究人员团队试图进行和评估有关决策指导的系统回顾的联合制作。
方法：我们在一篇综述中进行了一个混合方法案例研究，以描述系统综述的团队联合制作。我们使用协作研究框架来支持集成的知识翻译方法，以指导团队完成联合制作系统综述的步骤。该团队同意在审查中进行自我研究，以学习属于联合生产研究团队。包括患者伴侣在内的核心小组在审查中开发并进行了研究。数据来源是调查和文件。研究协调员进行了调查，以确定参与者的首选和实际参与水平，经验,和感知。我们包括频率计数，内容,文件分析。
结果：我们描述了系统综述的共同制作。17名队员中,14人（82%）同意参与研究，其中12人（86%）提供了系统审查前后的数据。大多数参与者确定为女性（n=9，75.0％），研究人员（n=7，58%），学员(n=4，33%)，和/或临床医生(n=2，17%)和两名患者/护理人员伙伴(17%)。团队与执行和指导委员会一起自行组织研究治理，并就研究共同生产行动和策略达成了共识。对参与11个系统审查步骤的满意度从75%到92%不等，一名参与者没有回答任何问题(8%)。参与者报告了团队沟通过程的积极经验(n=12，100%)，合作(n=12，100%)，和谈判（n=10-12，83-100%）。参与者认为系统评价是共同生产的（n=12，100％），具有协作（n=8，67％）和参与活动来表征共同生产（n=8，67％）。参与者表示，他们不会改变联合生产方法(n=8，66%)。五名参与者(42%)报告了团队后勤挑战，四名(33%)不知道挑战。
结论：我们的结果表明，使用综合知识翻译方法进行系统综述是可行的。我们证明了关系方法对研究联合生产的重要性，并且在研究生命周期中计划和积极支持团队参与至关重要。
方法：我们在一篇综述中进行了一个混合方法案例研究，以描述系统综述的团队联合制作。我们使用协作研究框架来支持集成的知识翻译方法，以指导团队完成联合制作系统综述的步骤。该团队同意在审查中进行自我研究，以学习属于联合生产研究团队。包括患者伴侣在内的核心小组在审查中开发并进行了研究。数据来源是调查和文件。研究协调员进行了调查，以确定参与者的首选和实际参与水平，经验,和感知。我们包括频率计数，内容,文件分析。
结果：我们描述了系统综述的共同制作。17名队员中,14人（82%）同意参与研究，其中12人（86%）提供了系统审查前后的数据。大多数参与者确定为女性（n=9，75.0％），研究人员（n=7，58%），学员(n=4，33%)，和/或临床医生(n=2，17%)和两名患者/护理人员伙伴(17%)。团队与执行和指导委员会一起自行组织研究治理，并就研究共同生产行动和策略达成了共识。对参与11个系统审查步骤的满意度从75%到92%不等，一名参与者没有回答任何问题(8%)。参与者报告了团队沟通过程的积极经验(n=12，100%)，合作(n=12，100%)，和谈判（n=10-12，83-100%）。参与者认为系统评价是共同生产的（n=12，100％），具有协作（n=8，67％）和参与活动来表征共同生产（n=8，67％）。参与者表示，他们不会改变联合生产方法(n=8，66%)。五名参与者(42%)报告了团队后勤挑战，四名(33%)不知道挑战。
结论：我们的结果表明，使用综合知识翻译方法进行系统综述是可行的。我们证明了关系方法对研究联合生产的重要性，并且在研究生命周期中计划和积极支持团队参与至关重要。
