Explore evaluation of partnering, and the effects of partnered rehabilitation research on the research process and outcomes in Canada, and how partnering contributed to those effects.
Qualitative descriptive design with researchers and knowledge users. A semi-structured interview guide was informed by existing partnered research and pilot tested for comprehensiveness and clarity. Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit eligible participants through Canadian organizations for rehabilitation professionals and directly through email. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim on MS Teams over a three-month period in early 2024. Reflective thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data. Member checking, dialogic engagement, participant triangulation, thick description, and field notes were used to enhance trustworthiness.
Seven researchers and six knowledge users participated. Six of the researchers also had clinical rehabilitation training (physiotherapy = 3, occupational therapy = 2, speech-language pathology = 1). Knowledge users had lived experience with a health condition (n = 3), were rehabilitation clinicians (prosthetist = 1 and speech language pathologist = 1), and one had experience as a health policymaker. Most participants identified as women and white. Participants did not conduct any evaluation of their partnerships and perceived evaluation as impractical and time-consuming. However, many participants believed it was valuable for understanding how to optimize and improve partnering. Despite the lack of evaluation, participants still described numerous effects of partnering. We generated one overarching theme from analysis, “The Effects are Extensive” which reflected how effects were not specific to the research process and outcomes only. We generated three sub-themes, two of which were specific to effects: “Beginning, Middle, and End” and “Opportunity for Learning”. These subthemes reflected participants' perceptions of the effects of the partnership on the early, mid, and later research phases, on research findings, (outcomes), and on individuals. The third subtheme, “How Partnering Influences Effects,” described how aspects of partnering, e.g., trust, respect, minimizing power imbalances, and leadership support, contributed to effects.
A tension between the value and practicality of evaluating partnered rehabilitation research exists for individuals engaging in this approach. Participants described many effects of partnering on the research process, outcomes, and individuals. Future research could investigate individuals’ capability, motivation, and opportunity for engaging in evaluation activities.
The findings describing how partnering contributed to effects could be used to inform how teams can work together on partnered rehabilitation research.
Partnered research
Rehabilitation
