Collaboration Between Researchers and Knowledge Users in Health Technology Assessment: A Qualitative Exploratory Study

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Department of Family Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada

Abstract

Background
Collaboration between researchers and knowledge users is increasingly promoted because it could enhance more evidence-based decision-making and practice. These complex relationships differ in form, in the particular goals they are trying to achieve, and in whom they bring together. Although much is understood about why partnerships form, relatively little is known about how collaboration works: how the collaborative process is shaped through the partners’ interactions, especially in the field of health technology assessment (HTA)? This study aims at addressing this gap in the literature in the specific context of HTA.
 
Methods
We used a qualitative descriptive design for this exploratory study. Semi-structured interviews with three researchers and two decision-makers were conducted on the practices related to the collaboration. We also performed document analysis, observation of five team meetings, and informal discussion with the participants. We thematically analyzed data using the structuration theory and a collective impact (CI) framework.
 
Results
This study showed that three main contextual factors helped shape the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users: the use of concepts related to each field; the use of related expertise; and a lack of clearly defined roles in the project. Previous experiences with the topic of the research project and a partnership based on “a give and take” relationship emerged as factors of success of this collaboration.
 
Conclusion
By shedding light on the structuration of the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users, our findings open the door to a poorly documented field in the area of HTA, and additional studies that build on these early observations are welcome.

Highlights

 

 

Watch the Video Summary here. 

 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

 

 

References

  1. Kothari A, Edwards N, Brajtman S, et al. Fostering interactions: the networking needs of community health nursing researchers and decision-makers. Evid Policy. 2005;1(3):291-304.
  2. Hofmeyer A, Scott C, Lagendyk L. Researcher-decision-maker partnerships in health services research: practical challenges, guiding principles. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:280. Doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-280
  3. Lavis JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):37-45.
  4. Kothari A, MacLean L, Edwards N, Hobbs A. Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2011;9(3):203-214. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2011.16
  5. Lencucha R, Kothari A, Hamel N. Extending collaborations for knowledge translation: lessons from the community-based participatory research literature. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2010;6(1):61-75.
  6. Lomas J. Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff (Millwood).. 2000;19(3):236-240. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.19.3.236
  7. Golden-Biddle K, Reay T, Petz S, Witt C, Casebeer A, Pablo A, Hinings CR. Toward a communicative perspective of collaborating in research: the case of the researcher^decision-maker partnership. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8 Suppl 2(S2):20-25.
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Knowledge to Action: A Knowledge Translation Casebook. Ottawa: CIHR; 2008.
  9. Jose K, Venn A, Jarman L, et al. Partnering Healthy@Work: an Australian university-government partnership facilitating policy-relevant research. Health Promot Int. 2016. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw033
  10. Hora MT, Millar SB. A guide to building education partnerships: Navigating diverse cultural contexts to turn challenge into promise. Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2012.
  11. Lasker RD, Weiss ES, Miller R. Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):179-205.
  12. Lasker RD, Weiss ES. Creating partnership synergy: the critical role of community stakeholders. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 2003;26(1):119-139.
  13. Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:38. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0399-1
  14. Weiss ES, Anderson RM, Lasker RD. Making the most of collaboration: exploring the relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. Health Educ Behav. 2002;29(6):683.
  15. Gagnon MP, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, et al. Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: a study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:14. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-14
  16. Tantchou Dipankui M, Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, et al. La participation des patients à l'évaluation des mesures alternatives à la contention et à l'isolement. Santé Publique. 2014;26 :217-226.
  17. Tantchou Dipankui M, Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, et al. Evaluation of patient involvement in a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.2016; forthcoming.
  18. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Community-based participatory research: policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2001;14(2):182-197.
  19. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311-346. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x
  20. Traynor R. Challenges of partnership research: insights from a collaborative partnership in evidence-informed public health decision-making. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research. 2015;11(1):99-109.
  21. Huberman M. Linkage between Researchers and Practitioners: A Qualitative Study. American Educational Research Journal. 1990;27(2):363-391.
  22. Laycock G. From central research to local practice: Identifying and addressing repeat victimization. PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT. 2000;20(4):17-22.
  23. Frenk J. Balancing relevance and excellence: Organizational responses to link research with decision-making. Social Science & Medicine. 1992;35(11):1397-1404.
  24. Giddens A. La constitution de la société : éléments de la théorie de la structuration Paris: Presses universitaires de France; 1987.
  25. Giddens A. The constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1984.
  26. Kania J, Kramer M. Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ embracing_emergence_how_collective_impact_addresses_ complexity. January 21, 2013.
  27. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2013;15(3):398-405.
  28. Huberman MA, Miles MB. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks (USA): Sage Publications; 1994.
  29. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Bonniol J-J. Analyse des donnÈes qualitatives. 2e Èd ed. Bruxelles: De Boeck UniversitÈ; 2003.
  30. Mulhall A. In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(3):306-313.
  31. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2011;27(1):31-42.
  32. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin F-P. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37-50.
  33. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, et al. Framework for User Involvement in Health Technology Assessment at the Local Level: Views of Health Managers, User Representatives, and Clinicians. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(1-2):68-77. doi:10.1017/S0266462315000070
  34. Abelson J, Wagner F, DeJean D, et al. Public and Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment: A Framework for Action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016:1-9. doi:10.1017/S0266462316000362
  35. Trostle J, Bronfman M, Langer A. How do researchers influence decision-makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy and Planning. 1999;14(2):103–114.
  36. Vhonani N. Quality partnerships: The community stakeholders' view. Gateways : International Journal of Community Research & Engagement. 2010;3(0):70-87. doi:10.5130/ijcre.v3i0.1541
  37. Kothari A, Sibbald SL, Wathen CN. Evaluation of partnerships in a transnational family violence prevention network using an integrated knowledge translation and exchange model: a mixed methods study. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2014;12:25-25. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-25
  38. Goldman KD, Schmalz KJ. Being well-connected: starting and maintaining successful partnerships. Health promotion practice. 2008;9(1):5. doi:10.1177/1524839907312096

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 June 2016
  • Revise Date: 08 December 2016
  • Accept Date: 11 December 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 August 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics