Table 2 Knowledge user involvement in cancer health services research project by study phase and case
Study Phase | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | Case 4 |
1. Involved in planning stages (i.e. defining research question, designing study) | Document Review (Proposala): - Not described Interviews: - Researcher did not indicate that knowledge users (KUs) were involved in the planning stages. - 2/3 KUs indicated they provided access to data but were not involved in planning stages; 1/3 KUs indicated they were involved in study design - All 3 KUs indicated they had an advisory role. | Document Review (Proposal): - “The decision-maker partners will be engaged in the research throughout the project, including the development and refinement of the research questions…” (pp.66) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that KUs were involved in planning stages, but had a limited role - 2 KUs indicated they were involved in the planning stages. - 1 KU could not recall their involvement. | Document Review (Proposal): - “[Names of two KUs] have been involved in the development of this project and articulation of its goals…” (pp.93) - “They have provided input on key methodological issues in the drafting of this proposal…” (pp.93) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that the research team did most of the project design - 1 KU described themselves as an adviser - 2 KUs said that they were involved in the research design stage with researchers. | Document Review (Proposal): - “Key stakeholders have been involved in the planning stages…of this research project.” (pp.55) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that KUs were involved in planning stages, which was built from a pilot done by the cancer system organization. - KUs indicated that the cancer system organization was involved in the “front end” and research approach was developed collaboratively with researchers. |
2. Involved in methods and/or analysis throughout the study | Document Review (Proposal): - Not described Interviews: - Researcher did not indicate that KUs were involved in methods or analysis throughout the study. Researcher indicated that they presented the results to KUs. - KUs confirmed the researcher’s views. | Document Review (Proposal): - “The entire study team will meet every 3 months to review analytic plans, interpret findings, and assign research tasks. The decision-maker partners will be engaged in the research throughout the project, including the development and refinement of the research questions, study methodology, and development of instruments and measures.” (pp.66) Interviews: - Researcher did not indicate KU involvement in methods or analysis - 2 KUs indicated there were minimal meetings and informal updates when the research was being conducted; - 1 KU did not recall their involvement. | Document Review (Proposal): - Not described Interviews: - Research team held regular meetings to keep KUs involved and informed throughout the project, and to obtain feedback from KUs. - 1 KU indicated they provided input throughout the project, and that there were regular meetings and email communication. - 1 KU indicated they were engaged “all the way along” - 1 KU left their organization role. | Document Review (Proposal): - “A working group comprised of [description of KUs] and study investigators will meet regularly throughout the project to ensure continued integrated KT [knowledge translation].” (pp.55) Interviews: - Researcher indicated one KU was involved in methods - 1 KU said they were engaged but had a role change and could no longer continue as a KU, but researcher kept them informed about study activities. |
3. Provided feedback on results | Document Review Proposal: -“To encourage this exchange, we will convene an advisory panel made up of representatives … to communicate findings and discuss implications of the data derived which may also lead to further sub-investigations.” (pp.101–102) Interviews: - Researcher and KUs indicated that, as advisers, they provided feedback on data and findings | Document Review Proposal: - “Regular reporting of results to the team will ensure timely progress and adjustments for further analyses and ultimately will result in findings which are relevant to the decision-makers.” (pp.66) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that more KU involvement came at the point when results were being reviewed. - 2 KUs indicated they provided feedback on findings - 1 KU did not recall their involvement. | Document Review Proposal: - “[KUs] will participate in reviewing and interpreting results of analysis.” (pp.93) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that KUs provided feedback on results and suggested future research directions. - 2 KUs indicated they provided feedback on results - 1 KU indicated that results were not available when they part of the project. | Document Review Proposal: - “The findings from each aim will be reviewed, analyzed and interpreted with input from this working group.” (pp.55) Interviews: - Researcher indicated KUs provided feedback on results then KUs used those findings to make programmatic changes. - 1 KU left before findings were available - 1 KU joined project to implement results once project was finished. |
4. a) Shared results with cancer system organization | Document Review Proposal: - Not described Interviews: - Researcher indicated that the research team shared results cancer system organization - 1 KU did not recall discussing results with organization. They were not sure if research team had sent them the results. - 2 KUs did not recall discuss results with the organization. | Document Review Proposal: - Not described Interviews: - Researcher was not aware if KUs had shared the results of the project with their organization - 1 KU indicated that they presented results at a cancer system organization meeting - 1 KU did not indicate they shared results with their organization - 1 KU did not recall their involvement. | Document Review Proposal: - Not described Interviews: - Researcher team was invited to cancer system organization to present results. - 1 KU indicated that they discussed project results with “lots of people” at the organization. - 2/3 KUs did not indicate that they shared results with organization | Document Review Proposal: - “The findings from each aim will be reviewed, analyzed and interpreted with input [from organization]…key findings will be communicated to other stakeholders integral to the conduct of the [name] program.” (pp.55) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that the team wrote a report for the KUs and the KUs used it to make program changes at cancer system organization. - 1 KU left role so was not involved in any sharing of results to cancer system organization - 1 KU joined project as a decision maker to implement results once project was finished. |
4. b) Shared results with other audiences | Document Review Proposal: - Not described Interviews: - Neither researcher nor KUs indicated that KUs shared results to audiences outside of cancer system organization. | Document Review Proposal: - Not described Interviews: - Researcher did not indicate that KUs had shared the results of the project with other audiences. - None of the KUs indicated that they shared the results with other audiences outside of organization. | Document Review Proposal - Not described Interviews: - 1 KU indicated that they shared the results to clinical audiences nationally and internationally - 1 KU changed roles during project but says they still reference the results in different presentations to other audiences outside of organization. | Document Review Proposal: - Not described Interviews: - Neither researcher nor KUs indicated that KUs shared results to audiences outside of organization. |
5. Implemented study results | Document Review Proposal (plan to implement): - Not described Interviews: - Researcher indicated that they are currently determining how to implement results and aligning with cancer system organization priorities. - None of the KUs said that they implemented results. | Document Review Proposal (plan to implement): - Not described Interviews: - Researcher did not indicate that KUs implemented the results. - 1 KU indicated that the researcher did not give them direction or tell them what to do next. - 1 KU was not aware if results were used by cancer system organization. - 1 KU did not recall their involvement. | Document Review Proposal (plan to implement): - Not described Interviews: - Researcher did not indicate that KUs implemented results, but continued to work with KUs and the collaboration led to additional research questions and projects. - 1 KU said they used the results to build a case around the validity of cancer system work and changes that should be made at a ‘clinical level’. - 1 KU left their role at cancer system organization; when they left, the KUs were working through how to implement results. - 1 KU left project and did not have a role in implementation. | Document Review Proposal (plan to implement): - “The objectives of our knowledge strategy are to improve [cancer system area] by: …translating the outcomes of our project to the broader research community.” (pp.55) - “With [KU] assistance, key findings will be communicated to other stakeholders integral to the conduct of the [cancer system organization program].” (pp.55) Interviews: - Researcher indicated that results were presented to KUs, which informed future cancer system organization activities, changes, and further research designs. - 1 KU indicated that program changes were made, but they themselves did not use results because they left the organization - 1 KU works with researcher often, and KU’s cancer system organization used project results to make cancer system process changes. |