Table 5 Descriptive papers of knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis
Author, Year, Country | Country income group, Context | Type of knowledge users involved | Type of engagement | Challenges to engagement | Benefits of engagement | Outcomes of engagement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atkins 2005 [49], USA | High-income, National healthcare system | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with expert panel | • Establishing early buy-in • Managing knowledge user expectation what evidence is available and what questions can be answered | • Early involvement in the research process can ensure the report addresses relevant clinical or policy issues • Knowing how the knowledge user will use the findings of the report can help inform data synthesis | Not reported |
Best 2009 [50], Canada | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users and expert panel | Not reported | Not reported | Participating content experts and decision-makers have been highly satisfied. (Not formally evaluated) |
Crawford 2015 [51], USA | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Healthcare professionals & organizations • Patients, patient organizations & caregivers • Policy-makers | • Consultation with Steering group | Not reported | • Involving stakeholders ensures research focus stays relevant to the end-user • Allows for translation from research to practice to occur more effectively | Not reported |
Keown 2008 [33], Canada | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Community members & advocates • Government agencies • Policy-makers • Regulatory bodies | • Consultation with key informants throughout he review • Principal knowledge users included as a review team member | • Balancing methodological rigor with flexibility to stakeholder needs • Stakeholder interactions can be time and resource-intensive • Some stakeholder feedback may not be feasible due to time and resource limitations • Finding an appropriate and knowledgeable stakeholder to participate as a review team member can be difficult | • Stakeholders’ input added depth to the review • Timing of stakeholder participation leads to specific advantages (e.g., early engagement led to exhaustive literature search and refined research questions, later engagement helped refine the report) • Research findings are more useful and relevant to end-users • Opportunity to build capacity of the knowledge users in research methods • On-going collaboration increases the chances for future collaborations | The stakeholder engagement experience has been positive (not formally evaluated) |
Khangura 2012 [52], Canada | High-income, Local healthcare system | • Health system managers • Policy-makers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
McIntosh 2016 [53], UK | High-income, National healthcare system | • Government agencies • Healthcare professionals & organizations • Industry stakeholder • Patients, patient organizations & caregivers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users and expert panel • Formal meeting/ workshop with advisory group, principal knowledge users and expert panel | • Requires development of efficient and flexible methods to identify and engage appropriate contributors • Managing expectations in order to ensure that rapid review conclusionsare not oriented by vested interests • Striking the right balance between engagement and pragmatism | Not reported | Upon completion, action review methods are used to solicit feedback from the topic referrer on whether review met expectations and what impact the evidence review and advice had. Surveys and semi-structured interviews conducted to explore perceptions of the utility and impact of rapid review-based advice among key decision-makers, including directors of finance, planning, public health and medicine |
Mindell 2010 [55], UK | High-income, Local healthcare system | • Government agencies • Policy-makers | • Consultation with steering group • Formal meeting/ workshop with key informants | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Saul 2013 [54], Canada | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users | • Maintaining on-going membership and engagement in rapidly changing political environments where membership of the advisory group may change during the course of a given project | • Advisory group role allows key agency or government staff to be engaged in the process without requiring excessive time commitments | Not reported |