Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review

Health Research Policy and Systems

Review

I. D. Graham¹  S. Shergill²  L. Swain³  M. D. Hill⁴  K. J. Mrklas⁵  M. Khan⁶  K. M. Sibley⁷  M. Tonelli⁸  S. Merali⁹  S. Raffin-Bouchal^1,10  L. Nowell^1,10  A. Goertzen^1,11  L. M. Pfadenhauer^1,12  J. M. Boyd^1,13  M. Vis-Dunbar^1,14  K. Paul^1,15 

[1] Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada;School of Epidemiology and Public Health & School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada;Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4Z6, Calgary, AB, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4Z6, Calgary, AB, Canada;Departments of Clinical Neurosciences, Medicine and Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4Z6, Calgary, AB, Canada;Strategic Clinical Networks™, Provincial Clinical Excellence, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada;George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada;Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Office of the Vice-President (Research), University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada;Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada;Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology–IBE, Ludwig-Maximilian Universität Munich, Munich, Germany;Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Munich, Germany;Knowledge Translation Program, St Michael’s Hospital, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;University of British Columbia - Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada;University of Calgary Summer Studentships Program, Calgary, AB, Canada;

关键词: Health research partnerships;    Evaluation tools;    Psychometrics;    Acceptability;    Systematic review;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12961-022-00937-9

 received in 2022-02-28, accepted in 2022-11-08,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

ObjectiveTo identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.ResultsFrom 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.ConclusionThis systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science.PROSPERO CRD42021137932

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq221.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq218.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq204.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq196.gif