Browsing by Author "Boyd, J. M."

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review
    (2023-01-05) Mrklas, K. J.; Boyd, J. M.; Shergill, S.; Merali, S.; Khan, M.; Nowell, L.; Goertzen, A.; Pfadenhauer, L. M.; Paul, K.; Sibley, K. M.; Swain, L.; Vis-Dunbar, M.; Hill, M. D.; Raffin-Bouchal, S.; Tonelli, M.; Graham, I. D.
    Abstract Objective To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. Results From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. Conclusion This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932