Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study
Authors: Lewis Krystina B. , Smith Maureen , Stacey Dawn , Carley Meg , Graham Ian D. ,   Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids Research Team, Volk Robert J. , Douglas Elisa E. , Pacheco-Brousseau Lissa , Finderup Jeanette , Gunderson Janet , Barry Michael J. , Bennett Carol L. , Bravo Paulina , Steffensen Karina Dahl , Gogovor Amédé , Kelly Shannon E. , Légaré France , Søndergaard Henning , Trenaman Logan , Trevena Lyndal 
Published: February 2024

AbstractBackgroundWhen people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as “knowledge users”. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users’ involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members’ degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids.MethodsWe conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from “Screen titles/abstracts” to “Provide feedback on draft article”. After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation.ResultsOf 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group.ConclusionFollowing the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.