Researchers' and Research Users' Experiences With and Reasons for Working Together in Spinal Cord Injury Research Partnerships: A Qualitative Study

Priorities and opportunities for advocacy in SCI: An international web-based review

CONTEXT

For the growing number of people with spinal cord injuries worldwide, advocacy organizations are an invaluable resource of information and education during recovery and rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the structure, information, and accessibility of websites from international organizations that serve and advocate for individuals with SCI.

METHODS

We performed a content analysis of information available from SCI organizations returned from a Google search. We used search terms relevant to SCI and advocacy and applied them to top-level domains for the G20 countries. Organizations that provide services or advocate for people with SCI with English-language websites were included; organizations focused on research, fundraising, clinical care, interprofessional knowledge exchange, or other neurological conditions were excluded. Accessibility, in terms of ease of use to information about participation, was assessed using a 3-point scale.

RESULTS

We identified SCI organizations from 27 different countries across six regions: Africa (N = 4), Asia (N = 5), Europe (N = 27), Middle East (N = 1), North America (N = 12), and Oceania (N = 11). Across these, six categories of resources and services are covered: (1) education, (2) physical health, (3) external, (4) peer support, (5) mental health, and (6) financial and legal. Eleven organizations indicate specific engagement with research or clinical trials. Four websites provided highly accessible information (rank = 3) about participation in research.

CONCLUSION

The SCI organizations identified in this study offer resources that largely pertain to education and physical health services and strategies. Information about clinical trials and SCI research studies are easily accessible on the websites of the limited number of organizations offering avenues for participation.

Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation

Moving from participatory approaches incorporating co-design to co-production in health research involves a commitment to full engagement and partnership with people with lived experience through all stages of the research process-start to finish. However, despite the increased enthusiasm and proliferation of research that involves co-production, practice remains challenging, due in part to the lack of consensus on what constitutes co-production, a lack of guidance about the practical steps of applying this approach in respect to diverse research methods from multiple paradigms, and structural barriers within academia research landscape. To navigate the challenges in conducting co-produced research, it has been recommended that attention be paid to focusing and operationalising the underpinning principles and aspirations of co-production research, to aid translation into practice. In this article, we describe some fundamental principles essential to conducting co-production research (sharing power, relational resilience, and adopting a learning mindset) and provide tangible, practical strategies, and processes to engage these values. In doing so, we hope to support rehabilitation researchers who wish to engage in co-production to foster a more equitable, ethical, and impactful collaboration with people with lived experience and those involved in their circle of care.

Bridges of perspectives: representation of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in editorial boards and peer review

BACKGROUND

Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012-2022) on their quality of life.

METHODS

An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022.

RESULTS

We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias.

IKT Guiding Principles: demonstration of diffusion and dissemination in partnership

INTRODUCTION

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a partnered approach to research that aims to ensure research findings are applied in practice and policy. IKT can be used during diffusion and dissemination of research findings. However, there is a lack of understanding how an IKT approach can support the diffusion and dissemination of research findings. In this study, we documented and described the processes and outcomes of an IKT approach to diffusing and disseminating the findings of consensus recommendations for conducting spinal cord injury research.

METHODS

Communication of the IKT Guiding Principles in two phases: a diffusion phase during the first 102 days from the manuscript's publication, followed by a 1147 day active dissemination phase. A record of all inputs was kept and all activities were tracked by monitoring partnership communication, a partnership tracking survey, a project curriculum vitae, and team emails. Awareness outcomes were tracked through Google Analytics and a citation-forward search. Awareness includes the website accesses, the number of downloads, and the number of citations in the 29 month period following publication.

RESULTS

In the diffusion period, the recommendations were viewed 60 times from 4 different countries, and 4 new downloads. In the dissemination period, the recommendations were viewed 1109 times from 39 different countries, 386 new downloads, and 54 citations. Overall, during dissemination there was a 17.5% increase in new visitors to the website a month and a 95.5% increase in downloads compared to diffusion.

CONCLUSION

This project provides an overview of an IKT approach to diffusion and dissemination. Overall, IKT may be helpful for increasing awareness of research findings faster; however, more research is needed to understand best practices and the the impact of an IKT approach on the diffusion and dissemination versus a non-partnered approach.

Comprehensive and person-centred approach in research: what is missing?

The concept of a comprehensive and person-centred approach in healthcare is not new and it is the basic principle that is embedded in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. However, the implementation of a comprehensive and person-centred approach has not been fully translated into research development in people living with spinal cord injuries (SCI). This approach in research is important as the perspectives of persons living with SCI should be equally valued drivers in any research intended to provide a direct or indirect outcome to people living with a SCI. This perspective paper will discuss some of the limiting factors and provide some examples of previous and current successful steps being taken towards the worldwide implementation of this approach. Finally, this paper will suggest some of the steps needed to implement this person-centred model in research in people with SCI.

Equitable partnerships between scientists and persons living with spinal cord injury will strengthen research scope, quality, and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Partnerships across all stakeholders in the research process strengthen the outcomes and ultimate usability of research. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current level of inclusion of people living with spinal cord injury (SCI) in the research process, the science of engagement and benefits of partnerships in research, and emerging resources available to help promote ethical and effective partnerships in SCI research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant strides have been made in interacting with people living with SCI to help identify the problem(s) that are important to study (i.e. the first step in the research process). The SCI research field is lagging in partnering with people living with SCI throughout the rest of the research process despite a plethora of evidence-based principles and strategies for effective partnerships in the broader context of research. There are several emerging resources specific to SCI to help researchers and the community begin to build meaningful partnerships throughout the entire cycle of research.

SUMMARY

The SCI research field already values partnerships with clinicians and promotes the concept of 'bench-to-bedside and back again'. Now is the time to take it a step further to 'bench-to-bedside-to-community and back again'.