加拿大的合作健康研究:2011年至2019年期间参与资助项目的研究人员和知识用户看法的横断面调查。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Kathryn M Sibley, Leah K Crockett, Heather L Gainforth, Ian D Graham, Femke Hoekstra, Jeff S Healey, Masood Khan, Sara Kreindler, Kent C Loftsgard, Christopher B McBride, Kelly J Mrklas, Alexie J Touchette
{"title":"加拿大的合作健康研究:2011年至2019年期间参与资助项目的研究人员和知识用户看法的横断面调查。","authors":"Kathryn M Sibley, Leah K Crockett, Heather L Gainforth, Ian D Graham, Femke Hoekstra, Jeff S Healey, Masood Khan, Sara Kreindler, Kent C Loftsgard, Christopher B McBride, Kelly J Mrklas, Alexie J Touchette","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01299-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Engaging knowledge users in health research is accelerating in Canada. Our objective was to examine perceptions of partnered health research among individuals involved in funded Canadian partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited 2155 recipients of 1153 funded projects to answer a questionnaire probing project characteristics and perceptions of partnered health research. We described and compared perceived effects of involving knowledge users in the project, team cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation for working in partnership between two categories of respondents: project role [nominated principal investigators (NPIs), other researchers and knowledge users] and gender.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We analysed data from 589 respondents (42% NPIs, 40% other researchers and 18% knowledge users; 56% women). Among the perceived effects variables, the proportion of ratings of significant influence of involving knowledge users in the project ranged between 12% and 63%. Cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation variables ranged between 58% and 97% agreement. There were no significant differences between respondent groups for most variables. NPIs and women rated the overall influence of involving knowledge users as significant more than other respondent groups (p < 0.001). NPIs also reported higher agreement with feeling sufficiently included in team activities, pressure to engage and partnerships enabling personal goals (all p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most respondents held positive perceptions of working in partnership, although ratings of perceived effects indicated limited effects of involving knowledge users in specific research components and on project outcomes. Continued analysis of project outcomes may identify specific contexts and partnership characteristics associated with greater impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"28"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874841/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partnered health research in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of perceptions among researchers and knowledge users involved in funded projects between 2011 and 2019.\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn M Sibley, Leah K Crockett, Heather L Gainforth, Ian D Graham, Femke Hoekstra, Jeff S Healey, Masood Khan, Sara Kreindler, Kent C Loftsgard, Christopher B McBride, Kelly J Mrklas, Alexie J Touchette\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01299-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Engaging knowledge users in health research is accelerating in Canada. Our objective was to examine perceptions of partnered health research among individuals involved in funded Canadian partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited 2155 recipients of 1153 funded projects to answer a questionnaire probing project characteristics and perceptions of partnered health research. We described and compared perceived effects of involving knowledge users in the project, team cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation for working in partnership between two categories of respondents: project role [nominated principal investigators (NPIs), other researchers and knowledge users] and gender.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We analysed data from 589 respondents (42% NPIs, 40% other researchers and 18% knowledge users; 56% women). Among the perceived effects variables, the proportion of ratings of significant influence of involving knowledge users in the project ranged between 12% and 63%. Cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation variables ranged between 58% and 97% agreement. There were no significant differences between respondent groups for most variables. NPIs and women rated the overall influence of involving knowledge users as significant more than other respondent groups (p < 0.001). NPIs also reported higher agreement with feeling sufficiently included in team activities, pressure to engage and partnerships enabling personal goals (all p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most respondents held positive perceptions of working in partnership, although ratings of perceived effects indicated limited effects of involving knowledge users in specific research components and on project outcomes. Continued analysis of project outcomes may identify specific contexts and partnership characteristics associated with greater impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874841/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01299-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01299-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:加拿大正在加速让知识使用者参与卫生研究。我们的目标是研究2011年至2019年期间参与资助的加拿大合作健康研究项目的个人对合作健康研究的看法。方法:我们邀请了1153个资助项目的2155名受助人回答了一份调查问卷,探讨了项目特征和对合作健康研究的看法。我们描述并比较了两类受访者(项目角色[被提名的主要研究者(NPIs),其他研究人员和知识使用者]和性别)在项目中涉及知识使用者、团队凝聚力、能力、机会和合作动机的感知效应。研究结果:我们分析了来自589名受访者的数据(其中42%为npi, 40%为其他研究人员,18%为知识使用者;56%的女性)。在感知的影响变量中,知识使用者参与项目的显著影响评级比例在12%至63%之间。凝聚力、能力、机会和动机变量的一致性在58%到97%之间。对于大多数变量,被调查者组之间没有显著差异。国家政策制定者和妇女认为知识使用者参与的总体影响比其他应答者群体更为显著(p结论:大多数应答者对伙伴合作持积极看法,尽管对感知效果的评级表明,知识使用者参与具体研究组成部分和对项目成果的影响有限。对项目成果的持续分析可以确定与更大影响相关的具体背景和伙伴关系特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Partnered health research in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of perceptions among researchers and knowledge users involved in funded projects between 2011 and 2019.

Partnered health research in Canada: a cross-sectional survey of perceptions among researchers and knowledge users involved in funded projects between 2011 and 2019.

Background: Engaging knowledge users in health research is accelerating in Canada. Our objective was to examine perceptions of partnered health research among individuals involved in funded Canadian partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019.

Methods: We invited 2155 recipients of 1153 funded projects to answer a questionnaire probing project characteristics and perceptions of partnered health research. We described and compared perceived effects of involving knowledge users in the project, team cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation for working in partnership between two categories of respondents: project role [nominated principal investigators (NPIs), other researchers and knowledge users] and gender.

Findings: We analysed data from 589 respondents (42% NPIs, 40% other researchers and 18% knowledge users; 56% women). Among the perceived effects variables, the proportion of ratings of significant influence of involving knowledge users in the project ranged between 12% and 63%. Cohesion, capability, opportunity and motivation variables ranged between 58% and 97% agreement. There were no significant differences between respondent groups for most variables. NPIs and women rated the overall influence of involving knowledge users as significant more than other respondent groups (p < 0.001). NPIs also reported higher agreement with feeling sufficiently included in team activities, pressure to engage and partnerships enabling personal goals (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Most respondents held positive perceptions of working in partnership, although ratings of perceived effects indicated limited effects of involving knowledge users in specific research components and on project outcomes. Continued analysis of project outcomes may identify specific contexts and partnership characteristics associated with greater impact.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信