Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
Author, year | Aims | Population | Intervention/two-way knowledge sharing technique or approach | Mechanism of knowledge sharing | Outcome (new knowledge or change in practice or research) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Batchelor 2013 | To identify and prioritise eczema treatment uncertainties that are of importance to patients who have the disease, their carers and the health care professionals who treat them | 40 Researchers, patients, carers and clinicians | Stakeholder engagement Priority Setting Partnership as part of a James Lind Alliance. The authors used a modified version of the James Lind Alliance approach, by including researchers as participants in the workshop phase of the approach. The approach was also extended by including the discussion of research questions and not just the generation of prioritized treatment uncertainties | Workshop taking place over one day, where participants went into four independently facilitated groups, which were equally balance across the population (e.g. patients and clinicians) | Discussion of six prioritised treatment uncertainties leading to 13 potential research questions (new knowledge) Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Clarke 2019 | To assess how co-produced research is conditioned by the emergence of group unity and a shared sense of belonging | Four project teams and their wider stakeholders Researchers, patients, carers, clinicians, health service managers, local authority and representatives of the third sector | Involvement within the research process Involvement of stakeholders in the research process itself through meetings and other project related interactions | Routine encounters both formal and informal from the early stages of project design, start‐up through access negotiations, data collection, analysis and dissemination | Demonstrated how inclusivity is generated and maintained through co-production Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Cooke 2015 | To identify the lessons learned from one collaboration and leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in relation to on-going collaborative research priority setting | Detail not given Researchers, clinicians and health service managers | Stakeholder engagement Collaborative priority setting (CPS), using three techniques of (1) trusted historical relationships, (2) platforms for negotiation and planning and (3) formal methods of consensus | Three techniques of knowledge sharing were used between researchers and stakeholders. Only the co-production workshops, categorised as (3) formal methods of consensus, led to new knowledge | Two projects were co-designed leading to joint grant capture (new knowledge) Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Devonport 2018 (not included in final synthesis) | To present a reflective account of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of obesity and binge eating research | 16 Researchers, patients, clinicians and a member of the public | Stakeholder engagement Four Patient Advisory Group meetings | Insufficient detail on process of two-way knowledge sharing | Critical learning points identified on how to improve involvement of patients |
Gerrish 2014 | To evaluate the success of knowledge transfer capacity development secondments from the perspective of multiple stakeholders | Detail not given researchers, clinicians and healthcare managers | Embedded models (practitioners) Fourteen secondments of 6–24 months duration of nurses into knowledge transfer teams | Secondees worked alongside experienced team members who were leading knowledge transfer initiatives | New solutions were reported as a result of sharing clinical and academic knowledge (new knowledge) “..secondee brought ideas back to the workplace with audit results showing that nutritional referrals in the secondee’s clinical area had improved and were higher than those on comparable wards.” P.214 (evidence of change) |
Gillard 2012 | To reflect on the extent to which knowledge was co-produced through qualitative analysis and to consider the implications of research co-production for study findings | 17 Researchers, patients, carers, clinicians and health service managers | Involvement within the research process Patients and carers were involved in the data collection, analysis and interpretation of a qualitative study of mental health. Feedback conferences were also used | Patients and carers were involved throughout research process and given an equal voice in decision making within the research study | Discussion with patient and carers was reported as directly affecting research findings (new knowledge) Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Guell 2017 | To explore how stakeholders assessed, negotiated and intended to apply multi-sectoral evidence in policy and practice at the intersection of transport and health | 41 Researchers, local authority managers and representatives of the third sector | Stakeholder engagement An end of project stakeholder forum to present and discuss findings | Presentation of the study and key findings, followed by stands in a ‘marketplace’ format to facilitate discussion with members of the research team and other attendees. A plenary session to identify key learning implications for policy and practice | Knowledge identified in how to communicate across the different sectors but no new knowledge generated Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Hutten 2015 | A priority-setting method for evidence-based service development to reconcile research with multiple stakeholder views | 40 Researchers, service users, carers, clinicians, health service managers and commissioners | Stakeholder engagement Researchers and stakeholders participated in three workshops to review evidence and generate service improvement ideas | Two workshops to review the evidence from two research projects, which generated twenty suggestions for service improvements that were discussed and debated in a final consensus workshop | Knowledge was generated from a consensus for eight suggestions for implementation (new knowledge) Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Irving 2018 (not included in final synthesis) | To describe the process of involving patients and public representatives in identifying, prioritizing and refining a set of outcome measures that could be used to support ambulance service performance measurement | 18 Researchers and members of the public | Stakeholder engagement An event was held that was organised with members of the public, as an engagement event for members of the public. A structured process of voting using technology was also used | Insufficient detail on process of two-way knowledge sharing | Event offered opportunities for more interactive engagement and personal contact with stakeholders. It also extended the influence of the public contributors in the study and build capacity for their involvement |
Knowles 2021 | To explore and evaluate the potential of a participatory codesign method as a mechanism of knowledge sharing | 12 One researcher and eleven members of the public | Involvement within the service design process Public contributors were involved in a service design process that was facilitated and supported by a researcher | Ten participatory co-design workshops were held, using activities including narrative methods and modelling methods | Approach generated hybrid knowledge that reflected a merging of different ways of knowing and understanding (new knowledge) Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Redwood 2016 | To describe and examine the development and establishment of micro-level operating units (health integration teams) of a locally evolved structural partnership of health organisations and academic institutions | Individuals from seven organisations, two universities, four provider organisations and one commissioning organisation | Organisational collaborative partnership Health integration teams formed in response to fragmentation within the commissioning of services and a lack of system leadership. Also, an initiative to promote evidence-based practice in commissioning and service delivery and a forum for integration | Process of change identified through four mechanisms (1) whole system engagement, (2) collaboration, (3) integration and (4) innovation | Knowledge was generated through the integration of the organisations in identifying solutions to challenges within the system (new knowledge) Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Shipman 2008 | To identify major concerns of national and local importance in the provision, commissioning, research, and use of generalist end of life care | 30 Researchers, clinicians, service commissioners, policy makers and user groups | Stakeholder engagement A national consultation and prioritising exercise using a modified form of the Nominal Group Technique | Five consultation meetings were held in each area for participants to discuss and clarify issues and prioritise research themes; non-attendees participated by telephone or email | Knowledge was shared, but it was reported that little consensus was reached. Several research questions were generated Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Smith 2015 | To understand how researchers and health service managers made sense of new ways of working. To design and conduct a developmental evaluation of the collaborative aspects on vascular disease prevention in primary care | Actual number unclear Researchers, commissioning managers | Organisational collaborative partnership Collaboration between two universities and two healthcare organisations in a local area | Scheduled project management meetings were the observed to be the principal interface between partners from different organisations throughout the study | Boundary maintenance enabled the co-production of at some practical meaning or sense, but the generation of new knowledge was not described Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Van der Graaf 2019 | To explore the challenges and opportunities to knowledge brokering in an institutional service | Five members of a knowledge brokering team and 150 researchers, public health teams, community sector workers and representatives of the third sector | Knowledge brokering Knowledge brokering within an established team at an organisational level | Conversations with policy and practice partners as part of the scoping of enquiries that the service received | Clear evidence of knowledge sharing process through this approach but new knowledge creation not described Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Vindrola-Padros 2019 | To explore and analyse the ‘researcher-in-residence’ model of knowledge co-production | Three researchers in residence in three contexts, two NHS trusts and one commissioning organisation | Embedded models (researchers) A model of embedded researchers working inside healthcare organisations, operating as staff members, while also maintaining an affiliation with their academic institutions | As part of the local team, researchers negotiate the meaning and use of research-based knowledge to co-produce knowledge, which is sensitive to the local context | Clear evidence of knowledge sharing process through this approach but new knowledge creation not described Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Waterman 2015 | To describe how knowledge transfer associates facilitated the implementation of evidence-based health care | Eight knowledge transfer associates who were researchers working across six project teams with clinicians and health service managers | Knowledge brokering Knowledge transfer associates worked across hospitals, primary care and community-based organisations to facilitate evidence-based health care | Facilitative role of the knowledge transfer associates created a knowledge sharing mechanism as they interacted with others | Evidence of knowledge sharing through approach but new knowledge creation not described Evidence of change in research or practice was outside of scope of study |
Wright 2013 | To describe how health practitioners were embedded as researchers within clinical practice and supported by a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care | 23 Seventeen allied health professionals working as researchers in clinical teams | Embedded models (practitioners) Practitioners were embedded within clinical teams and supported by academic mentors to increase research skills and build research capacity | Knowledge sharing occurred between practitioners and research mentors and also between practitioners in a researcher role with other members of clinical team | Practitioners used research knowledge gained to instigate changes in practice, but new knowledge was not evidenced as being created from knowledge sharing |