IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0005854.html

Evaluating the perceived outcome and impact of an integrated knowledge translation approach in the development of an equity reporting guideline: A cross-sectional survey

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Brown
  • Omar Dewidar
  • Catherine Chamberlain
  • Luis Gabriel Cuervo
  • Holly North Ellingwood
  • Sonya Faber
  • Cindy Feng
  • Damian K Francis
  • Sarah Funnell
  • Elizabeth Ghogomu
  • Billie-Jo Hardy
  • Tanya Horsley
  • Mwenya Kasonde
  • Michelle Kennedy
  • Tamara Kredo
  • Julian Little
  • Michael Johnson Mahande
  • Zack Marshall
  • Lawrence Mbuagbaw
  • Miriam Nkangu
  • Ekwaro A Obuku
  • Oyekola Oloyede
  • Ebenezer Owusu-Addo
  • Tomás Pantoja
  • Kevin Pottie
  • Anita Rizvi
  • Larissa Shamseer
  • Beverley Shea
  • Janice Tufte
  • Peter Tugwell
  • Zulfiqar Bhutta
  • Charles S Wiysonge
  • Luke Wolfenden
  • Janet Jull
  • Vivian Welch

Abstract

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) involves active engagement of knowledge users in co-producing research, ensuring their perspectives shape study design, analysis, and reporting. This can strengthen justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) considerations. We adopted an IKT approach in developing STROBE-Equity, an equity-focused reporting guidelin extension. The perceived value of embedding JEDI principles in reporting guideline development is unknown. This study examines the team’s perceptions on the implementation of the JEDI-enhanced IKT process and its influence on the guideline. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of STROBE-Equity project members (n = 68) between July–August 2024. The 19-item survey assessed disciplinary background, participation, and perceived benefits, challenges, and potential impacts of the JEDI-enhanced IKT approach. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes, which were quantified with frequencies and percentages. Thirty-one members responded. Most were aged 35–54 (61%), female (55%), based in Canada (35%), and trained in epidemiology (61%). Reported benefits of IKT included integrating diverse perspectives, inclusive representation, and collaborative learning. Challenges involved accessibility and accommodations, consensus-building, and navigating power dynamics between researchers, policymakers, and those with lived experience. Participants perceived that IKT broadened the understanding of social conditions in the development process and facilitated incorporation of end-user perspectives, which they believed would strengthen the credibility and applicability of the guideline. They also noted that this collaborative approach would likely enhance the dissemination and uptake of STROBE-Equity and enhance its acceptability moving forward. A JEDI-enhanced IKT approach was viewed as beneficial to the development of the reporting guideline. Challenges such as accessibility and balancing power dynamics highlight areas where the participatory process could be improved. Future research should continue to refine and evaluate inclusive approaches to guideline development to further advance JEDI in research.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Brown & Omar Dewidar & Catherine Chamberlain & Luis Gabriel Cuervo & Holly North Ellingwood & Sonya Faber & Cindy Feng & Damian K Francis & Sarah Funnell & Elizabeth Ghogomu & Billie-Jo Hardy , 2026. "Evaluating the perceived outcome and impact of an integrated knowledge translation approach in the development of an equity reporting guideline: A cross-sectional survey," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005854
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005854
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005854&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005854?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005854. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.