Table 4 TIDieR intervention checklist
Author, year, country | Description of intervention | Rationale, theory or goal of intervention | Physical materials or informational materials used | Procedures/activities/processes used | Modes of delivery | Influencing factors and tailoring or modifications | Evaluation undertaken and assessment of outcome | Applicability, generalisability or external validity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Batchelor 2013 | Workshop to review results of a prioritization exercise and to develop research questions based on prioritized uncertainties | Rationale – within a priority setting partnership, to use open engagement to discuss and to generate research questions by consensus | Summary information to provide contextual information about the topic | Workshop with different stakeholder groups Independently facilitated | Face-to-face Group Location unclear | Workshop had been modified from James Lind Alliance, Priority Setting Partnerships to include generation of research questions | No evaluation | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Clarke 2019 | Use of a co-production approach within research projects | Theory – ritual theory [1] and the Interaction Ritual Chain concept [2], to explain how inclusivity is established and maintained, as a key element of co-production | None reported | Project management group meetings at four project sites | Face-to-face Group Locations in three UK universities and local health and care providers | Projects selected on their ‘explicit use of co-production’ | Ethnographic data were collected from observation, informal and semi-structured interviews Everyday rituals and routines were observed to generate and sustain inclusivity | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Cooke 2015 | Collaborative priority setting in a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) | Rationale – use of priority setting to build capacity and collaboration with stakeholders. Three strategies were described | Refreshments at meetings and workshops | a) Trusted historical relationships | a) Not described | None described | Qualitative semi-structured interviews, workshop, and documentary analysis Formal methods of consensus of co-production workshops were reported to have led to joint grant capture | Replicable as a whole approach across other organisations with resources similar to CLAHRCs |
b) Platforms for negotiation and planning | b) Special interest, steering and advisory groups | |||||||
c) Formal methods of consensus | c) Delphi and Nominal Group Technique. Co-production workshops | |||||||
Gerrish 2014 | Academic and clinical nurses were seconded into knowledge translation teams within a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) | Rational – to enhance knowledge translation (KT) expertise in KT teams and to provide capacity development opportunities to benefit CLAHRC partners | None reported | Not reported | Face-to-face, individually and in groups | None described | Pluralistic evaluation Focus groups, discussion groups and semi-structured interviews in two phases Secondees reported to have facilitated change in practice | Replicable in organisations with existing knowledge translation/mobilisation teams |
Gillard 2012 | Involvement of service users and carers in qualitative data analysis | Goal – to reflect on the extent to which knowledge was co-produced | Research data from semi structured qualitative interviews | Preliminary analysis, development and application of analytical framework, stakeholder conferences, asking questions of the qualitative data, writing up | Face-to-face in groups | None described | No evaluation | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Guell 2017, | Stakeholder forum held on one occasion | Goal – to discuss relevant research evidence and observe knowledge exchange | Market stalls set up with over 20 publications to engage with | Market place format followed by a formal plenary session | Face-to-face, individually and in groups | None described | Ethnographic observation and semi-structured interviews Generated knowledge on how to communicate | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Hutten 2015 | Consensus workshops with range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise service improvement ideas | Goal – to demonstrate a method of generating and agreeing on service improvement priorities | Detailed briefing pack sent before the event Electronic voting technology | Short presentations, a question-and-answer session and process of voting on own individual priorities | Face-to-face in a group | None described | No evaluation | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Knowles 2021 | Participatory co-design workshops with patients and service users for service design | Rationale – that if authentic involvement was achieved this would lead to knowledge sharing | None reported but activities described suggest drawing materials | Ten co-design participatory workshops | Face-to-face in a group | None described | Collective in-action analysis, survey, focus group and field notes Learning generated on co-design process | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Redwood 2016 | Collaborative partnership between National Health Service partners, the city council and two universities | Theory – communities of practice theory (3) and a theory of change model developed to explain intervention | None reported | Collaborative stakeholder meetings for each micro-level team (Health Integration Team) | Face-to-face in groups | Influencing factors on organisational collaborative partnerships as a mechanism of knowledge sharing outlined through a theory of change | Document analysis and stakeholder semi-structured interviews | Difficult to replicate in areas without similar infrastructure and partnerships |
Shipman 2008 | Consultation meetings to clarify and prioritise research themes | Goal – to identify major concerns of national and local importance in the provision, commissioning, research and use of generalist end of life care | None reported | Consultation meetings held as part of a Nominal Group Technique, for participants to discuss and clarify and prioritise research themes, | Face-to-face in groups | Method of Nominal Group Technique was modified to generate ideas before the meeting and to allow those unable to attend to participate via email or telephone | No evaluation | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |
Smith 2015 | Organisational collaborative partnership between universities and health care organisations within a health care system | Theory – three theoretical lenses were used to explain the partnership working, the co-productionist idiom [4], interactionist currents within organisation studies [5, 6] and communication, argumentation and critique from a pragmatic perspective [7, 8], [9] | Formal project documents (boundary objects) | Project management group meetings and the use/negotiation around documentation | Face-to-face in groups | Study revealed the involvement of other organisations outside of the formal partnership | Observation, document analysis and postal questionnaire Identified how collaboration was being maintained by maintenance of boundaries rather than ‘blurring’ of them | Difficult to replicate in areas without similar infrastructure and partnerships |
Van der Graaf 2019, United Kingdom | Knowledge brokering service between academics and health practitioners | Theory – use of ‘dramaturgical lens’ and ‘front and backstage’ in partnerships to explain knowledge brokering process [10] | None reported | Knowledge broker interactions with research requests from 150 + health, or social care sector representatives | Face-to-face, email and one-to-one conversations | None described | Auto-ethnographic evaluation of conversations from summary notes and emails Identified challenges and how these could be overcome by similar services | Difficult to replicate in areas without similar infrastructure and partnerships |
Vindrola-Padros 2019, United Kingdom | The ‘researcher-in residence’ embedded model, | Rational – researchers in residence will negotiate the meaning and use of research and co-produce local context sensitive knowledge | None reported | Three aspects: (1) building relationships, (2) defining and adapting the scope of the projects and (3) maintaining academic professional identity | Face-to-face, individually and in groups | None described | No evaluation | Three case studies given, which aids replicability across other groups and topic areas |
Waterman 2015, United Kingdom | Knowledge transfer associates, responsible for the facilitation of the implementation of evidence-based health care | Theory/framework—PARIHS model emphasising the facilitative function, and the use of a knowledge brokering framework [11, 12] | None reported | Knowledge transfer associates as part of a team responsible for implementing evidence-based health care | Face-to-face in groups | Knowledge transfer associate with a different theoretical underpinning perspective to a knowledge broker | Analysis of co-operative enquiry meetings and reflective diaries Identified factors that could support similar initiatives | Some potential to replicate model in organisations using evidence-based health care projects or equivalent |
Wright 2013, United Kingdom | Referred to as knowledge brokers but described as embedded researchers within clinical teams (with a clinical professional backgrounds) | Rationale – that these allied health professionals would bridge the gap identified between research and practice through boundary spanning roles | None reported | Literature searches/reviews, empirical data collection and implementation of projects or processes with evaluation of outcome | Face-to-face, individually and in groups | None described | In-depth interviews, report and reflective diaries Identified increase in research skills in individuals, piloting of research findings in practice but no impact on colleagues | Replicable across other groups and topic areas |