Background: Conducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, organisations, patients) is a promising and popular approach to improving the implementation of research findings in policy and practice. This study aimed to identify the principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts reported in different types of reviews of research partnerships in order to obtain a better understanding of the scope of the research partnership literature.Methods: This review of reviews is part of a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to synthesise the research partnership literature with five conceptually linked literature reviews. The main research question was ‘What principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts are reported in different types of research partnership approaches?’. We included articles describing a literature review of research partnerships using a systematic search strategy. We used an adapted version of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess quality. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2018. Principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts were extracted from the included reviews and analysed using direct content analysis.Results: We included 86 reviews using terms describing several research partnership approaches (e.g. community-based participatory research, participatory research, integrated knowledge translation). After the analyses, we synthesised 17 overarching principles and 11 overarching strategies and grouped them into one of the following subcategories: relationship between partners; co-production of knowledge; meaningful stakeholder engagement; capacity-building, support and resources; communication process; and ethical issues related to the collaborative research activities. Similarly, we synthesised 20 overarching outcomes and impacts on researchers, stakeholders, the community or society, and the research process.Conclusions: This review of reviews is the first that presents overarching principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships. This review is unique in scope as we synthesised literature across multiple research areas, involving different stakeholder groups. Our findings can be used as a first step to guide the initiation and maintenance of research partnerships and to create a classification system of the key domains of research partnerships, which may improve reporting consistency in the research partnership literature.Trial registration: This study is registered via Open Science Framework:10.17605/OSF.IO/GVR7Y.

To address a gap between Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) research and practice by rigorously and systematically co-developing Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) guiding principles for conducting and disseminating SCI research in partnership with research users. The process was guided by the internationally accepted Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument for evaluating the development of clinical practice guidelines. North American SCI research system (i.e. SCI researchers, research users, and funders). The multidisciplinary expert panel (n=17) and end users (n=35) included individuals from a North American network of SCI researchers, research users, and funders who have expertise in research partnerships. Not applicable. Clarity, usefulness, and appropriateness of the principles. Data regarding 125 principles of partnered research were systematically collected from four sources (review of reviews, scoping review, interviews, and Delphi consensus exercise). A multidisciplinary expert panel held a two-day meeting to establish consensus, select guiding principles, and draft the guidance. The panel reached 100% consensus on the principles and guidance document. The final document includes a preamble, eight guiding principles, and a glossary. Survey data showed that the principles and guidance document were perceived by potential end users as clear, useful, and appropriate. The IKT Guiding Principles represent the first rigorously co-developed, consensus-based guidance to support meaningful and impactful SCI research partnerships. The principles are a foundational tool with the potential to improve the relevance and impact of SCI research, mitigate tokenism, and advance the science of integrated knowledge translation.

Background: People with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases report lower levels of physical activity and well-being than the general population, which potentially is exacerbated through the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored the international literature on physical activity, sedentary behavior and well-being in adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases during the first wave of the pandemic. Method: In a rapid review, we included studies reporting on physical activity, sedentary behavior and/or well-being in adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases. Four databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase) were searched for studies published until 30 September 2020. Results: We included twenty-nine studies involving eleven different types of disabilities or health conditions from twenty-one different countries. Twenty-six studies reported on physical activity, of which one reported an increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, four studies reported no difference, and twenty-one studies reported a decrease. Thirteen studies reported a decline in well-being. Only one study measured sedentary behavior, reporting an increase. Conclusion: Despite the variety in methods used, almost all studies reported negative impacts on physical activity and well-being in people with physical disabilities and/or chronic disease during the first wave of the pandemic. These findings highlight the importance of supporting this population, especially in times of crisis.

Research partnership approaches, in which researchers and stakeholders work together collaboratively on a research project, are an important component of research, knowledge translation, and implementation. Despite their growing use, a comprehensive understanding of the principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts of different types of research partnerships is lacking. Generating high-quality evidence in this area is challenging due to the breadth and diversity of relevant literature. We established a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to identify and synthesize the partnership literature and better understand the evidence base. This review protocol outlines an innovative approach to locating, reviewing, and synthesizing the literature on research partnerships. Five reviews pertaining to research partnerships are proposed. The Coordinated Multicenter Team developed a consensus-driven conceptual framework to guide the reviews. First, a review of reviews will comparatively describe and synthesize key domains (principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts) for different research partnership approaches, within and beyond health (e.g., integrated knowledge translation, participatory action research). After identifying commonly used search terminology, three complementary scoping reviews will describe and synthesize these domains in the health research partnership literature. Finally, an umbrella review will amalgamate and reflect on the collective findings and identify research gaps and future directions. We will develop a collaborative review methodology, comprising search strategy efficiencies, terminology standardization, and the division of screening, extraction, and synthesis to optimize feasibility and literature capture. A series of synthesis and scoping manuscripts will emerge from this Coordinated Multicenter Team approach. Comprehensively describing and differentiating research partnership terminology and its domains will address well-documented gaps in the literature. These efforts will contribute to and improve the quality, conduct, and reporting of research partnership literature. The collaborative review methodology will help identify and establish common terms, leverage efficiencies (e.g., expertise, experience, search and protocol design, resources) and optimize research feasibility and quality. Our approach allows for enhanced scope and inclusivity of all research user groups and domains, thereby contributing uniquely to the literature. This multicenter, efficiency and quality-focused approach may serve to inspire researchers across the globe in addressing similar domain challenges, as exist in this rapidly expanding field.

Study design: Knowledge translation (KT) study. Objectives: To demonstrate how to use systematic, community-engaged methods to (1) translate the international scientific spinal cord injury (SCI) exercise guidelines into community and clinical practice guidelines, and (2) develop supporting resources. Setting: Canada. Methods: An expert panel of SCI researchers and stakeholders translated the guidelines and developed a supporting resource, using a KT process guided by an adapted version of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Pilot tests with end-users were conducted throughout. Results: The panel recommended (1) the two scientific exercise guidelines be combined and presented in a single message titled “The Canadian SCI physical activity guidelines”; (2) development of an online supporting resource, with educational and motivational information presented in “layers” to address the needs and preferences of diverse end-users. The top layer presents and explains the Canadian SCI physical activity guidelines. The deeper layers include information on benefits, overcoming barriers, activity examples, safety tips, and links to existing resources. Interviews with adults with SCI (n = 8) and survey-data from end-users (n = 90) showed that the guidelines and supporting resource were perceived as clear, useful, and appropriate. Conclusion: Using community-engaged methods, the two scientific SCI exercise guidelines were combined into one single physical activity guideline message. This KT process provides a template for groups in other countries to translate the scientific SCI exercise guidelines to their local settings using a similar systematic, community-engaged approach. Sponsorship: Rick Hansen Institute; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Introduction Stimulating physical activity behaviour in persons with a physical disability is important, especially after discharge from rehabilitation. A tailored counselling programme covering both the period of the rehabilitation treatment and the first months at home seems on the average effective. However, a considerable variation in response is observed in the sense that some patients show a relevant beneficial response while others show no or only a small response on physical activity behaviour. The Rehabilitation, Sports and Active lifestyle (ReSpAct) study aims to estimate the associations of patient and programme characteristics with patients’ physical activity behaviour after their participation in a tailored counselling programme. Methods and analysis A questionnaire-based nationwide longitudinal prospective cohort study is conducted. Participants are recruited from 18 rehabilitation centres and hospitals in The Netherlands. 2000 participants with a physical disability or chronic disease will be followed during and after their participation in a tailored counselling programme. Programme outcomes on physical activity behaviour and patient as well as programme characteristics that may be associated with differences in physical activity behaviour after programme completion are being assessed. Data collection takes place at baseline and 14, 33 and 52 weeks after discharge from rehabilitation. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Groningen and at individual participating institutions. All participants give written informed consent. The study results will provide new insights into factors that may help explain the differences in physical activity behaviour of patients with a physical disability after they have participated in the same physical activity and sports stimulation programme. Thereby, it will support healthcare professionals to tailor their guidance and care to individual patients in order to stimulate physical activity after discharge in a more efficient and effective way. Trial registration number NTR3961.