Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance of an online spinal cord injury research advocacy course to train research partners

Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance of an online spinal cord injury research advocacy course to train research partners | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance of an online spinal cord injury research advocacy course to train research partners Emily Giroux, Kenneth Noguchi, Barry Munro, Gabriela Ocampo, Heather Gainforth This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916049/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Spinal Cord → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Study Design: Three-wave prospective. Objectives: Examine the impact of the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium’s Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC) using the RE-AIM framework. Setting: North America. Methods: The RE-AIM domains for reach, effectiveness, and maintenance were assessed. Reach measures included participant enrollment (number and representativeness) and course completion. Primary effectiveness measures included changes in knowledge of the spinal cord injury (SCI) research process and perceived capacity to advocate/partner in research. Satisfaction and learning experiences were secondary effectiveness measures. Participant enrollment, perceived capacity to advocate/partner, and five satisfaction and learning experiences questions on overall knowledge and application were repeated as maintenance measures. Results: Of the 248 participants who completed the pre-survey, 20% (n=50) and 9% (n=22) completed the course (and the post-survey) and 6-month surveys, respectively. Most participants who completed SCI-RAC were white (67%) and of high socioeconomic status (30%). No associations were found between demographics, perceived capacity to partner, and course completion. Significant improvements were observed in participants’ knowledge of the SCI research process (Glass’ delta= 0.50, p <0.001) and perceived capacity to partner (e.g., capability: Glass’ delta=0.59, p <0.001). Participants reported high levels of satisfaction and positive learning experiences. Conclusions: SCI-RAC showed initial improvements in course participants’ knowledge and perceived capacity to partner, and participants were satisfied with the course. Findings suggest that NASCIC may want to review their recruitment strategies to reach more equity-owed groups and consider offering SCI-RAC alongside interventions that connect researchers and research users to continue improving the practice of SCI research partnerships. Health sciences/Medical research/Outcomes research Health sciences/Medical research/Translational research Figures Figure 1 Introduction Peoples living with spinal cord injury (SCI) have called for SCI research to be conducted in meaningful partnership ( 1 – 4 ), which involves engaging of the right research users (i.e., individuals/groups/organizations that would benefit from/use the research findings) at the right time throughout the research process ( 3 , 5 ). Despite these calls, peoples living with SCI still experience tokenism, which occurs when their involvement is to legitimize or endorse research, despite having little to no authority or influence ( 3 , 6 ). The North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium (NASCIC) is an SCI organization working to combat tokenism and promote meaningful engagement in SCI research ( 7 ). Through a membership survey, NASCIC learned their members had strong desires to set research priorities and co-design research studies, but felt they had minimal research knowledge ( 4 ). To support their members’ needs, NASCIC created the Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC): an online course aimed at increasing knowledge of the SCI research process to support meaningful engagement. While SCI-RAC is a potential solution to combat tokenism, it may only influence research partnerships if its desired outcomes are achieved by its intended users. When seeking to understand the impact of interventions, evaluation frameworks can allow for structure and comprehensiveness ( 8 ). RE-AIM is one framework that addresses individual (i.e., r each, e ffectiveness, m aintenance) and setting-level ( a doption, i mplementation, m aintenance) intervention domains, allowing for holistic examination during design, dissemination, and implementation phases. These reasons, combined with RE-AIM’s previous use in SCI behavioural interventions ( 9 – 12 ), supports the viability as a framework for evaluating SCI-RAC. Despite calls for more knowledge of how to partner in research ( 4 ), increased knowledge alone may not be enough to influence research partnerships. Partnering in research involves the enactment of behaviours, warranting an evaluation of SCI-RAC’s impact on behaviours . The COM-B model, which suggests that enactment of any behaviour requires capability (physical, psychological), opportunity (physical, social), and motivation (automatic, reflective), allows for in-depth examination of influences on behaviour ( 13 ). Moreover, its evidence-based linkages to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel allow for a detailed, user-friendly approach to developing behaviour change interventions ( 13 – 15 ). Considering its benefits and prominence in the contexts of SCI and research partnerships ( 10 , 16 – 20 ), the COM-B model may be useful for evaluating SCI-RAC. Guided by the individual-level domains of the RE-AIM Framework and the COM-B model, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of SCI-RAC. The following research questions were posed: Reach : (a) What was the absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of individuals who participated in the evaluation and in SCI-RAC? (b) Were participants’ demographic factors associated with whether or not they completed SCI-RAC? (c) Beyond demographic factors, do participants’ baseline levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation to partner further explain the variance in course completion across participants? Effectiveness : (a) Did SCI-RAC immediately increase knowledge and/or build capacity for partnering in SCI research? (b) Were participants immediately satisfied with the course and their learning experiences from the course? Maintenance : Were changes in knowledge and/or capacity maintained over time ? Methods Study Design A three-wave prospective study design was used. Using Qualtrics surveys, data were collected at three time points: pre-course (T1), immediately post-course (T2), and six-months post course completion (T3). The evaluation ran for one year from March 31st 2023 to March 31st, 2024. Context Intervention: The Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC) SCI-RAC includes 12 video-based modules (topics listed in Supplementary File 1) to be completed in sequential order. Participants could not start the next module until passing a multiple-choice quiz. To maximize enrolment, NASCIC planned to share social media advertisements distribute postcards during conferences and events, and meet with their partners. Study Procedures Ethical approval was obtained from the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H22-00816). At the beginning of each survey, participants were asked to indicate any relevant role(s) they held (e.g., person living with SCI, researcher, clinician, industry professional, etc.). Participants could select multiple roles (e.g., a person living with an SCI and a researcher), meaning there were instances of multiple responses to the same question. Participants and Recruitment Post-registration, all participants were prompted to answer the T1 survey or proceed to Module 1. Anyone registered for SCI-RAC was able to access the T1 survey, however participants could not enroll in the study at a later date after opting out. Measures Reach Reach indicators included 1) the total number of SCI-RAC registrants and graduates (individuals who completed the course), 2) total number of evaluation participants at T1, T2, and T3 and 3) description of participants’ demographic and/or injury characteristics. At T1, participants self-reported their age, sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, level of education, country of residence, annual income, and place of residence. Injury-specific demographics included year of SCI, level, severity, cause, and types of mobility aids used. Effectiveness Two outcomes were selected as primary effectiveness indicators: 1) knowledge of the SCI research process, and 2) perceived capacity to partner. To assess knowledge of the SCI research process, eight true or false statements were created and total number of correct responses were calculated (range: 0–8). Correct answers were given one point, and any incorrect or “I don’t know” answers were given no points. A modified version of the brief COM-B questionnaire, which has demonstrated good acceptability, and evidence of predictive validity, discriminant validity, and test-retest reliability ( 21 ), was used to assess perceived capacity to partner. Given the range of behaviours that can constitute partnering, NASCIC selected five to examine. Using a 7-point Likert Scale, participants indicated how their psychological capability (n = 1 item), physical opportunity (n = 1 item), social opportunity (n = 1 item), and reflective motivation (n = 3 items) influenced their capacity to enact the behaviours. Learning experiences and satisfaction were secondary effectiveness outcome measures. A modified version of a learning and satisfaction questionnaire, was used. informed by the Evaluation of Technology Enhanced Learning Materials for Learner Perceptions, was used ( 22 , 23 ). Internal consistency was good for learning experiences (n = 18 items; α = 0.84) and excellent for satisfaction (n = 8 items; α = 0.95), allowing for the reporting of aggregated scores. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert Scale, and open-ended questions were included after each item, allowing participants to explain their scores. Maintenance All COM-B questionnaire items and five items from the learning experiences and satisfaction questionnaire were re-assessed at T3. True/false questions were not repeated at T3. Surveys from all three timepoints are available in Supplementary File 2. Statistical Analyses All statistical analyses were performed using StataNow 18.5 BE. Reach For the total number of people enrolled in SCI-RAC (regardless of course completion), the number of SCI-RAC graduates was divided by the number of SCI-RAC registrants. The proportion of retained participants between each timepoint was also examined. Descriptive statistics, such as means and interquartile ranges (IQRs) or frequencies and percentages were used to describe continuous and categorical demographic characteristics, respectively. As a secondary exploratory analysis, a two-step, hierarchical binomial logistic regression model was computed to examine the association between demographic factors and COM-B/TDF constructs (independent variables) and course completion (yes/no; dependent variable). In Step 1, age (continuous), gender identity (categorical: two levels), race (categorical: two levels), and presence/absence of SCI (categorical: two levels) were included as predictor variables. Previous literature has shown associations between these variables and course completion ( 24 ), while absence/presence of SCI was added at NASCIC’s request. To allow for the direct comparison of odds ratios (ORs) across predictor variables, gender and race were treated as two-level categorical variables by removing the two individuals (1% of total responses) that identified as non-binary, and aggregating race responses as white/not white (only for this secondary analysis). In Step 2, psychological capability, physical opportunity, intention, and beliefs about capabilities (all continuous) for partnering were added, as previous literature has highlighted relationships between these constructs and online course completion ( 24 ). For each model, statistical significance of each predictor ( p < 0.05), ORs and 95% confidence intervals, and pseudo-R 2 values were reported. Model fit was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (χ²). Model fit was compared between models using a likelihood ratio test. Effectiveness and Maintenance Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences between T1 and T2 for the primary effectiveness indicators. Medians and IQRs were reported given the skewness of the data. Effect sizes were calculated using Glass’s delta. We considered the effects as small (0.2), medium (0.5), large (0.8), and very large (> 1.0) ( 25 ). For participants who identified as having multiple roles (e.g., person living with SCI and researcher), our main analysis used their responses from the perspective of living with an SCI, as they were the original intended user for SCI-RAC. However, sensitivity analyses were conducted by replacing any responses from peoples living with SCI with their response from a researcher, clinician, or industry perspective to ensure this perspective was accounted. For the two behaviours only presented to peoples living with SCI, there were insufficient data to perform inferential statistics. For transparency, medians and IQRs without significance tests are presented in Supplementary File 3. Medians, IQRs, minimum and maximum values were used to report on learning experiences and satisfaction. Open-ended questions were subjected to a directed content analysis ( 26 ), which focused on categorizing statements by positive feedback, negative feedback, and future course improvement recommendations. To examine maintenance, the intended analysis was a linear mixed model examining the COM-B questions across all three timepoints. Wilcoxon-signed rank tests would once again be used to examine changes between T2 and T3 for the five items re-asked from the learning and satisfaction questionnaire. Sample Size As this is an effectiveness study and NASCIC was solely responsible for recruitment, the final sample size was based on the number of survey respondents at each stage. However, a sample size calculation based on previous work indicated that a sample size of 19 would be sufficient to detect medium to very large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.71–1.72) with 80% power, at an alpha significance level of 0.05 ( 27 ). Results Reach Participant Demographics Figure 1 outlines the flow of participants over T2, T3 and the number of participants included in all reach and effectiveness primary and secondary analyses. Disaggregated demographic and injury data for participants are presented in Table 1. To protect participant confidentiality, frequencies for the specific roles of participants with “multiple roles” (e.g., researcher and clinician) are not provided. [Insert Figure 1] [Insert Table 1] Models Predicting Course Completion For Step 1, no demographic variables were statistically significant. Pseudo-R 2 indicated that 1.2% of the variance in course completion could be explained by the Step 1 predictor variables. The goodness-of-fit test yielded a non-significant result (χ 2 (8)=11.71, p = 0.16), suggesting minimal evidence of poor fit. For Step 2, no predictor variables were statistically significant. However, Pseudo-R 2 increased slightly, where the Step 2 model explained 9.0% of the variance in course completion. Goodness-of-fit test suggested minimal evidence of poor fit (χ 2 (8)=6.94, p = 0.54). The likelihood-ratio test was not significant, and the Step 2 model did not have superior fit compared to Step 1 ( p =0.10), indicating that the addition of COM-B predictor variables did not further explain course completion. Table 3 includes ORs, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for each model step. [Insert Table 2] Effectiveness Overall, there was a significant increase in knowledge of the SCI research process (T1: 6.0 [IQR=3.0], T2: 7.0 [IQR=1.0], p <0.001, Glass’ delta= 0.50). For perceived capacity to partner, Table 4 provides descriptive statistics, p-values, and effect sizes for COM-B questionnaire items asked to all participants (i.e., engaging on consumer advisory boards, reviewing grants, partnering). For these three behaviours, there were significant increases in psychological capability (all p ≤ 0.02, Glass’ delta= 0.57-0.59) and beliefs about consequences (all p ≤ 0.05, Glass’ delta= 0.37-0.71). For reviewing grant applications and partnering, there were significant increases in physical opportunity (reviewing grants: p = 0.02, Glass’ delta= 0.50; partnering: p = 0.006, Glass’ delta = 0.54) and belief in capabilities (reviewing grants: p = 0.005, Glass’ delta=0.56; partnering: p = 0.01, Glass’ delta=0.43). No significant differences were observed for social opportunity and intentions across any behaviours. [Insert Table 3] Learning Experiences and Satisfaction Participants had positive experiences regarding satisfaction (T2: 7.0 [IQR=0.5], Min.=3.0, Max.=7.0) and learning experiences (T2: 6.0 [IQR=1.0], Min.=1.0, Max.=7.0). Responses to the open-ended questions further suggest that participants had positive and valuable experiences from participating in the course. Course successes included the integration of stories from the perspectives of peoples living with SCI, the integration of external resources throughout the course, and the course’s self-paced nature. Some participants also shared how SCI-RAC showed them the importance of integrating SCI lived experience in their work, with some even writing commitment statements for using course learnings in their role(s), or recommending the course be offered at a university/college level. Concerning challenges, participants expressed that the course background music was distracting, as it was repetitive and participants could not turn it off. Moreover, not all course material was seen as relevant for all participants. For example, some participants were impressed with the amount of information on the physiology of their injury, while others felt there was too much focus on pre-clinical research. Some participants who identified as researchers felt that the physiology content was not necessary as it was irrelevant to lived experience engagement, while others felt the course showed them how to engage peoples living with SCI in pre-clinical and clinical SCI research. Many recommendations to improve the course stemmed from addressing the noted challenges such as removing background music and letting participants choose which modules to complete. Additional recommendations included increasing platform interactivity (e.g., a live instructor, interactive videos) and fixing technical glitches. Maintenance Data were sparse at T3, preventing a meaningful analysis. Instead, scores for each of the questions are presented descriptively with medians and IQRs in Supplementary File 3. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of SCI-RAC by examining the individual-level domains of the RE-AIM framework. To understand SCI-RAC’s broader impact and future directions, the results are discussed alongside pre-existing literature. Overall, this study provides initial evidence of the impact of SCI-RAC, while highlighting areas of improvement for future course iterations. The evaluation initially drew in many participants at T1 (n = 230), but this number was not retained over T2 and T3. Participant drop-off was also observed in the total number of SCI-RAC participants, with only 27% having completed the course after one-year. While this completion rate is considered high for open, online courses (which have been estimated at 4–15%)( 28 ), we could systematically evaluate NASCIC’s dissemination plan, making it difficult to understand the participant drop-off and strategize for greater reach and retention. Future course development and evaluation efforts should employ strategies such as the use of dissemination tracking surveys to note all course launch communications ( 29 ), or interviewing participants to understand non-completion ( 30 ). Across all timepoints, most participants were white, straight, highly educated, and of high socioeconomic status. At T1 and T3, most participants were female. Importantly, any effort to promote the reach of SCI-RAC should account for all eligible participants, not just certain demographics. With the exception of more women participating, our findings align with Nixon’s coin model of privilege, which highlights how individuals with certain identities (e.g., white, straight, high class) experience privilege (e.g., greater access and benefit) simply because of who they are ( 31 ). Previous literature has shown that women tend to participate more in courses that are self-paced, allow for anonymous participation, and are not financially incentivized, which may explain the exception with gender( 32 ). Overall, these observations highlight that SCI-RAC is not reaching equity-owed groups to the same extent, and future efforts should be undertaken to promote more inclusive participant recruitment. While disaggregating participants’ demographic data revealed identities that were not accessing and/or benefitting from the course, it is important to not ignore the intersecting nature of participants’ identities or their role(s) when understanding participant representativeness. Notably, 32–36% of all participants across all timepoints indicated holding “multiple roles” (e.g., person with SCI and researcher). Despite best intentions to examine the data from an intersectional lens, our sample size was not large enough without compromising participant confidentiality, statistical power, and risking tokenistic subgroup representation ( 33 , 34 ). Given this evaluation was not an efficacy or randomized control trial, a priori strategies to promote larger sample sizes and meaningful representation, such as oversampling or stratified sampling ( 33 ) were not in the research team’s control. While using sensitivity analyses to account for participants’ multiple perspectives is one strategy to account for intersecting roles, our findings further support calls for more research being needed to examine participants’ intersecting identities and roles in the context of SCI. Our findings suggested that demographic and COM-B predictor variables are not associated with whether or not participants completed SCI-RAC. Previous studies in the context of physical disability and open, online courses have varied. For example, one study found significant differences in completion rates between people with and without multiple sclerosis ( 35 ), while an evaluation of an online course for physiotherapists on SCI care reported no differences between participants who did or did not complete the course ( 36 , 37 ). Given that our sample size was much smaller than these studies (n = 2281–2363), future examination of the relationship between demographic factors, COM-B constructs, and course completion would benefit from greater efforts to promote recruitment and retention of course participants, allowing for the use of interaction terms when examining this relationship. Statistically significant increases were observed in knowledge, psychological capability, physical opportunity, beliefs about capabilities, and beliefs about consequences, with effect sizes ranging from small to medium (Δ = 0.36 to 0.59). These findings demonstrate that SCI-RAC was successful in achieving its goals of improving knowledge of the SCI research process and perceived capacity to enact some behaviours that constitute partnering. Increases in physical opportunity to review grant applications and partner were promising to see, as limited time and resources have previously been identified as barriers to partnering in SCI research ( 17 , 38 ). It is possible that increased knowledge helped participants feel less constrained by time and have increased awareness of resources, or other research teams that were partnering. Regarding motivation, there were no statistically significant increases in intention, which could suggest that participants were already motivated to meaningfully engage in SCI research. Importantly, if SCI-RAC is unable to address all COM-B constructs, it is unlikely to be effective at improving perceived capacity to partner. As such, it would be beneficial for NASCIC to consider linking the COM-B constructs where no changes were observed to the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify options for other interventions to target partnership capacity. For example, since no significant changes were observed in social opportunity, the Behaviour Change Wheel suggests that restriction, environmental restructuring, modelling, or enablement would be viable intervention functions to consider. NASCIC has started addressing this gap, as they are creating an SCI Research Matchmaking Platform (updates to be shared on the NASCIC website) ( 7 ). Overall, participants were satisfied with SCI-RAC and had positive learning experiences. While this is the first study (to our knowledge) evaluating an online SCI research partnership course, previous open, online SCI courses have been created (e.g., physical activity counselling, physiotherapist management) ( 36 , 39 ). Similar to our findings, both courses also received mostly positive feedback, with participants either praising or recommending the inclusion of more ‘interactive’ learning, and additional videos. However, we only received open-ended responses from participants who completed SCI-RAC, and it is possible that participants who did not complete the course felt differently. A notable strength of this work was adopting a partnered approach to the evaluation. While NASCIC was not positioned to influence the results, their involvement in deciding outcomes of interest ensured the relevance and usefulness of the evaluation findings for their operations. Pragmatically, NASCIC has already implemented feedback to improve SCI-RAC, and has introduced SCI-RAC Lite , which allows users to complete modules most relevant to their roles and learning goals: https://nascic.org/course-profile/ . Regarding limitations, a lack of T3 responses prevented us from being statistically powered to examine maintenance. In the future, efforts to support participants to complete the course and evaluation surveys (e.g., reminder e-mails, participant incentives) should be considered. Second, we examined perceived capacity to partner, and participants were only surveyed on five behaviours. Given that the actual enactment of every behaviour constituting partnering was not examined, we cannot directly claim that SCI-RAC improves research partnerships. Future research would benefit from examining SCI-RAC’s impact on more behaviours, and examining actual rather than perceived capacity for partnering. Finally, while we worked with NASCIC to ensure the surveys would resonate with both Canadian and American participants, it is possible that some wording choices may have impacted how participants responded. For example, “consumer” has been critiqued for its suggestion of transactional relationships between peoples living with SCI and clinicians, yet is still widely used in health and community contexts ( 40 ). Finally, the participants from this evaluation reside in two countries, where differences in governance and research systems can impact how research partnerships behaviours are enacted, such as the administration of research funding. To enhance long-term uptake, future efforts to examine SCI-RAC need to account for these differences. Conclusion SCI-RAC demonstrated initial successes at increasing knowledge, and influencing psychological capability, physical opportunity, beliefs about capabilities, and beliefs about consequences for perceived capacity to partner in SCI research. Continued efforts are needed to ensure that SCI-RAC is reaching and benefitting not only a higher volume, but more diverse representation of individuals. To further enhance NASCIC’s impact, they can consider offering SCI-RAC alongside other initiatives aim to connect researchers and research users to create meaningful research partnerships. Declarations Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical purposes. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the North American Spinal Cord Consortium Community Engagement Working Group for their work in developing SCI-RAC and informing the design of the evaluation: John Basile, Andrew Stewart, Angele Parente, Claudia Garofalo, David Digby, Edward Grave, Ena Miller, Jake Beckstrom, Jeffra Welden, Jerrod Kerr, John Gensel, Kim Beer, Kimblerly Pfleeger, John Kramer, Linda Bambrick, Lora Hornung, Nicole Smith, Susan Schaeffer, Tara Jeji, and William Bailey. The authors would also like to acknowledge Stacey Antonakis for her support with SCI-RAC’s LearnDash analytics. Finally, we would like to respectfully acknowledge that we work and live on traditional and unceded Indigenous territories as well as Treaty lands across Turtle Island which have long served as sites of meeting and exchange amongst nations. Author Contributions EEG, GO, BM, and HLG collaborated to conceptualize the study. EG led the development of data collection materials, which GO and BM reviewed the surveys to ensure relevance and usefulness for NASCIC. EG led and conducted the quantitative analysis and quantitative analysis. KSN supported and mentored EG with the quantitative analyses (study design, selection of statistical methods). As EG’s doctoral supervisor, HLG supervised EG throughout conducting the study. EG drafted the initial article and all authors provided feedback and approved the final version of the manuscript. Funding EG was supported by both a SSHRC Doctoral Award and a MITACS Accelerate Fellowship for this work. Statement of Ethics All applicable institutions and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human participants were followed during the course of this research. Ethical approval was obtained through the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ezthics Board (H22-00816). Competing Interests All authors do not have any competing interests to disclose. References Anderson KD. Equitable partnerships between scientists and persons living with spinal cord injury will strengthen research scope, quality, and outcomes. Curr Opin Neurol. 2021;34(6):783–8. Anderson KD. Including People with Spinal Cord Injury in Research as Participants, Partners, and Personnel. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(15):6466. Gainforth HL, Hoekstra F, McKay R, McBride CB, Sweet SN, Martin Ginis KA, et al. Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles for Conducting and Disseminating Spinal Cord Injury Research in Partnership. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(4):656–63. Morse LR, Field-Fote EC, Contreras-Vidal J, Noble-Haeusslein LJ, Rodreick M, Shields RK, et al. Meeting Proceedings for SCI 2020: Launching a Decade of Disruption in Spinal Cord Injury Research. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(9):1251–66. Nguyen T, Graham ID, Mrklas KJ, Bowen S, Cargo M, Estabrooks CA, et al. How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):35. Majid U. The Dimensions of Tokenism in Patient and Family Engagement: A Concept Analysis of the Literature. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(6):1610–20. North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium. About Us [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://nascic.org/about-us/ Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53. Shaw RB, Sweet SN, McBride CB, Adair WK, Martin Ginis KA. Operationalizing the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the collective impact of autonomous community programs that promote health and well-being. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):803. Sweet SN, Michalovic E, Baxter K, Baron J, Gainforth HL. RE-AIMing conferences: a reach, effectiveness, and maintenance evaluation of the Rick Hansen Institute’s Praxis 2016. Transl Behav Med [Internet]. 2019 Feb 12 [cited 2025 Jan 5]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/ 10.1093/tbm/ibz002/5315999 Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Tomasone JR, Latimer‐Cheung AE, Martin Ginis KA. Get In Motion: An Evaluation of the Reach and Effectiveness of a Physical Activity Telephone Counseling Service for Canadians Living With Spinal Cord Injury. PM&R. 2014;6(12):1088–96. Gainforth HL, Latimer-Cheung AE, Athanasopoulos P, Martin Ginis KA. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a community-based organization implementing an event-based knowledge mobilization initiative to promote physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury among support personnel. Health Promot Pr. 2015;16(1):55–62. Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing; 2014. Etherington C, Rodrigues IB, Giangregorio L, Graham ID, Hoens AM, Kasperavicius D, et al. Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):169. Giroux EE, Casemore S, Clarke TY, McBride CB, Wuerstl KR, Gainforth HL. Enhancing participation while aging with spinal cord injury: applying behaviour change frameworks to develop intervention recommendations. Spinal Cord [Internet]. 2020 Sep 28 [cited 2021 May 18]; Available from: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41393-020-00555-8 Shwed A, Giroux EE, Hoekstra F, McKay RC, Schaefer L, West CR, et al. Supporting meaningful research partnerships: an interview study applying behavior change theory to develop relevant recommendations for researchers. Transl Behav Med. 2023;13(11):833–44. Wuerstl KR, McBride CB, Deschênes-Bilodeau J, Hoekstra F, Gainforth HL. Exploring smoking cessation experiences among persons with spinal cord injury: Informing theory-based recommendations for interventions. Spinal Cord. 2023;61(1):27–36. Lucci VEM, McKay RC, McBride CB, McGrath MS, Willms R, Gainforth HL, et al. Barriers and facilitators to changing bowel care practices after spinal cord injury: a Theoretical Domains Framework approach. Spinal Cord. 2022;60(7):664–73. McKay RC, Wuerstl KR, Casemore S, Clarke TY, McBride CB, Gainforth HL. Guidance for behavioural interventions aiming to support family support providers of people with spinal cord injury: A scoping review. Soc Sci Med. 2020;246:112456. Keyworth C, Epton T, Goldthorpe J, Calam R, Armitage CJ. Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a brief measure of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (“COM-B”). Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(3):474–501. Cook DA, Ellaway RH. Evaluating technology-enhanced learning: A comprehensive framework. Med Teach. 2015;37(10):961–70. Grieve NJ, Cranston KD, Jung ME. Examining the Effectiveness of an E-Learning Training Course for Coaches of a Type 2 Diabetes Prevention Program. J Technol Behav Sci. 2023;9(2):180–90. Shaikh UU, Asif Z. Persistence and Dropout in Higher Online Education: Review and Categorization of Factors. Front Psychol. 2022;13:902070. Manoj Kumar L, Stephen J, George R, Harikrishna G, Anisha P. Use of Effect Size in Medical Research: A Brief Primer on its Why and How. Kerala Journal of Psychiatry. 2022;35(1):78–82. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. Courvoisier M, Baddeliyanage R, Wilhelm L, Bayliss L, Straus SE, Fahim C. Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):76. Hood N, Littlejohn A. MOOC Quality: the need for new measures. J Learn Dev [Internet]. 2016 Nov 10 [cited 2025 Apr 7];3(3). Available from: https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/165 Shwed A, Hoekstra F, Bhati D, Athanasopoulos P, Chernesky J, Martin Ginis K, et al. IKT Guiding Principles: demonstration of diffusion and dissemination in partnership. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):53. Haan M, Toepoel V, Ongena Y, Janssen B. Recruiting non-respondents for a conversation about reasons for non-response: A description and evaluation. Surv Pract. 2024;17(1):1–5. Nixon SA. The coin model of privilege and critical allyship: implications for health. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1637. Morante A, Djenidi V, Clark H, West S. Gender differences in online participation: examining a History and a Mathematics Open Foundation online course. Aust J Adult Learn. 2017;57(2). Bauer GR. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:10–7. Bauer GR, Scheim AI. Advancing quantitative intersectionality research methods: Intracategorical and intercategorical approaches to shared and differential constructs. Soc Sci Med. 2019;226:260–2. Claflin SB, Campbell JA, Doherty K, Farrow M, Bessing B, Taylor BV. Evaluating Course Completion, Appropriateness, and Burden in the Understanding Multiple Sclerosis Massive Open Online Course: Cohort Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e21681. Glinsky JV, Ilha J, Xiong Y, Gomez G, Rostagnor S, Martín-Manjarrés S, et al. The 2022 Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) to train physiotherapists in the management of people with spinal cord injuries: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of learners’ experiences and its impact. Spinal Cord. 2023;61(11):615–23. Harvey LA, Glinsky JV, Lowe R, Lowe T. A Massive Open Online Course for teaching physiotherapy students and physiotherapists about spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord. 2014;52(12):911–8. Gainforth HL, Shwed A, Giroux EE, Hoekstra F, McKay RC, Schaefer L, et al. Transforming research systems for meaningful engagement: a reflexive thematic analysis of spinal cord injury researchers’ barriers and facilitators to using the integrated knowledge translation guiding principles. Disabil Rehabil. 2024;1–9. Hoekstra F, Gainforth HL, Broeksteeg R, Corras S, Collins D, Eleftheriadou E, et al. The co-development and evaluation of an e-learning course on spinal cord injury physical activity counselling: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):240. Harvey LA. Words matter. Spinal Cord asks authors to choose their words carefully. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(4):257–257. Tables Table 1. Demographic Information for All Participants Variable n=total responses for each variable, presented as median [IQR] or n (%) General Demographics Role T1 (n=248) T2 (n=50) T3 (n=22) Person living with SCI 65 (26.2) 8 (16.0) 5 (22.7) SCI family member 16 (6.5) 3 (6.0) 1 (4.5) Researcher 50 (20.2) 14 (28.0) 6 (27.3) Clinician 19 (7.7) 2 (4.0) -- Knowledge broker 2 (0.8) -- -- SCI organization staff/volunteer 10 (4.0) 4 (8.0) 2 (9.1) SCI policy maker or funder 1 (0.4) 1 (2.0) -- Biotech/Industry staff 4 (1.6) -- -- Not listed 9 (2.0) Multiple roles 72 (30.6) 18 (36.0) 8 (36.4) Age, years n=194; 41[23] n=41; 35[19] n=21; 34[23] Sex n=194 n=46 n=21 Female 120 (61.9) 17 (37.0) 12 (63.2) Male 69 (35.6) 29 (63.0) 8 (36.8) Gender Identity n=194 n=46 n=21 Woman 116 (59.8) 17 (31.7) 12 (63.2) Man 69 (35.6) 28 (65.9) 8 (36.8) Non-binary 2 (1.0) 1 (24.4) -- Race n=193 n=46 n=21 Arab 1 (0.5) -- -- Black 11 (5.7) 5 (10.8) 2 (9.5) East Asian 7 (3.6) 1 (2.2) -- Hispanic 8 (4.1) 2 (4.4) 1 (4.8) South Asian 10 (5.2) 1 (2.2) 1 (4.8) Southeast Asian 4 (2.1) 1 (2.2) 1 (4.8) West Asian 3 (1.6) 1 (2.2) 1 (4.8) White 122 (63.2) 31 (67.4) 10 (47.6) Multiracial/Multicultural 16 (8.3) 1 (2.2) 1 (4.8) Sexual Orientation n=194 n=46 n=21 Asexual 6 (3.1) 2 (4.4) -- Bisexual 11 (5.7) 5 (10.9) -- Gay -- -- -- Lesbian 2 (1.0) -- -- Pansexual 2 (1.0) 1 (2.2) 1 (5.3) Queer 3 (1.6) -- -- Straight 147 (75.8) 32 (69.6) 17 (81.0) Two-Spirit 1 (0.5) -- -- Unsure/Questioning 5 (2.5) -- -- Education n=194 n=46 n=21 Below high school -- -- -- High school 7 (3.6) 2 (4.4) 1 (4.8) Some university/college 22 (11.3) 3 (6.5) 2 (9.5) University/college degree 69 (35.6) 20 (41.3) 9 (42.9) Trades/apprenticeship 2 (1.0) -- -- University/college & Trades/ apprenticeship 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) -- Post-graduate studies 86 (44.3) 19 (43.8) 8 (38.1) Country of residence n=194 n=46 n=21 Canada 73 (36.8) 22 (43.9) 11 (52.4) United States 106 (55.3) 23 (53.7) 10 (47.6) Mexico 2 (1.0) -- -- Other 10 (5.2) -- -- Annual income n=194 n=46 n=21 <$14,999 11 (5.7) 3 (6.5) 3 (14.3) $15,000 to $29,999 14 (7.2) 4 (8.7) 1 (4.7) $30,000 to $49,999 26 (13.4) 7 (15.2) 2 (9.5) $50,000 to $79,999 28 (14.4) 6 (13.0) 4 (19.0) ≥$80,000 67 (34.5) 14 (30.4) 4 (19.0) Injury Demographics Person with SCI* T1 (n=90) T2 (n=19) T3 (n=9) Years post-injury n=73; 19[22] n=15; 13[14.5] n=9; 13[8] Level of Injury n=79 n=18 n=9 C1-C4 6 (7.6) 1 (5.6) 1 (11.1) C5-C8 27 (34.2) 5 (27.8) 4 (44.4) T1-T6 10 (12.7) 1 (5.6) -- T7-T12 10 (12.7) 1 (5.6) -- L1-L5 6 (7.6) 3 (16.7) -- Multiple Levels 16 (20.3) 3 (16.7) -- Severity of SCI n=79 n=18 n=9 Complete 29 (36.7) 8 (44.4) 4 (44.4) Incomplete 46 (58.2) 9 (50.0) 5 (55.6) Cause of Injury n=79 n=18 n=9 Traumatic 69 (87.3) 17 (94.4) 9 (100.0) Non-Traumatic 6 (7.6) 1 (5.6) -- Note: Prefer not to answer is included in the total n, but not included as a disaggregated. For injury demographics, *n counts include participants who indicated “person living with SCI AND another role” as their role. Table 2. Full Results of the Stepwise, Hierarchical Binomial Logistic Regression Models Variable Model 1 OR [95% CI] p-value Model 2 [OR, 95% CI] p-value Demographic Factors Age 0.97 [0.94, 1.02] 0.28 0.98 [0.94, 1.02] 0.34 Gender 0.98 [0.34, 2.83] 0.97 1.21 [0.39, 3.79] 0.74 Race 1.08 [0.35, 3.36] 0.89 1.03 [0.31, 3.42] 0.96 Presence/Absence of SCI 1.01 [0.31, 3.31] 0.99 1.01 [0.29, 3.57] 0.98 COM-B Variables Psychological Capability -- -- 1.40 [0.83, 2.36] 0.21 Physical Opportunity -- -- 0.72 [0.45, 1.15] 0.17 Intention -- -- 1.41 [0.71. 2.79] 0.32 Beliefs About Capabilities -- -- 1.09 [0.53, 2.21] 0.82 Pseudo R 2 0.01 -- 0.09 -- Table 3. Overview of COM-B Questionnaire Data: Descriptive Statistics, Statistical Significance, and Effect Sizes Variables T1 Median [IQR] Mean (SD) T2 Median [IQR] Mean (SD) Difference Median [IQR] Mean (95% CI) p-value Glass’s Δ Psychological Capability: I know how to… Participate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board 6.0 [2.0] 5.26 (1.74) 6.0 [1.0] 6.30 (0.76) +0.0 [2.0] +1.04 (0.25, 1.84) 0.02 0.57 Review grant applications for SCI research (that include meaningful engagement of people living with SCI) 4.0 [4.0] 4.14 (1.91) 5.0 [1.0] 5.27 (1.49) +1.0 [2.0] +1.14 (0.37, 1.90) 0.006 0.59 Partner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role 5.5 [1.0] 5.23 (1.23) 7.0 [1.0] 5.95 (1.25) +1.0 [1.0] +0.73 (0.34, 1.12) 0.001 0.59 Physical Opportunity: My physical environment provides me with the opportunity to… Participate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board 6.0 [3.0] 5.70 (1.15) 6.0 [1.0] 6.13 (0.81) +0.0 [1.0] +0.43 (-0.03, 0.90) 0.10 0.37 Review grant applications for SCI research (that include meaningful engagement of people living with SCI) 6.0 [2.0] 5.13 (1.46) 6.0 [1.0] 5.86 (1.25) +1.0 [1.0] +0.82 (0.15, 1.48) 0.02 0.50 Partner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role 6.0 [2.0] 5.27 (1.45) 6.0 [1.0] 6.05 (1.21) +1.0 [1.0] +0.77 (0.19, 1.35) 0.006 0.54 Social Opportunity: My social and/or professional network provides me with the opportunity to… Participate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board 6.0 [3.0] 5.56 (1.59) 6.0 [2.0] 6.00 (0.95) +0.0 [3.0] +0.43 (-0.19, 1.06) 0.31 0.28 Review grant applications for SCI research (that include meaningful engagement of people living with SCI) 6.0 [2.0] 5.04 (1.67) 6.0 [2.0] 5.55 (1.37) +0.0 [1.0] +0.50 (-0.16, 1.17) 0.25 0.31 Partner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role 6.0 [2.0] 5.64 (1.29) 6.0 [1.0] 6.09 (1.19) +0.0 [1.0] +0.45 (-0.01, 0.92) 0.07 0.35 Reflective Motivation: I want to… Participate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board 6.0 [2.0] 5.82 (1.18) 6.5 [1.0] 6.36 (0.79) +0.0 [1.0] +0.55 (0.04, 1.05) 0.06 0.46 Review grant applications for SCI research (that include meaningful engagement of people living with SCI) 5.0 [3.0] 5.05 (1.72) 6.0 [1.0] 5.57 (1.33) +0.0 [1.0] +0.90 (-0.13, 1.17) 0.09 0.30 Partner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role 6.0 [1.0] 5.86 (1.28) 6.5 [1.0] 6.09 (1.31) +0.0 [1.0] +0.23 (-0.35, 0.81) 0.69 0.18 Reflective Motivation: I am confident in my ability to… Participate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board 6.0 [2.0] 5.60 (1.67) 6.0 [1.0] 6.34 (0.71) +0.0 [2.0] +0.74 (0.05,1.43) 0.08 0.44 Review grant applications for SCI research (that include meaningful engagement of people living with SCI) 5.0 [2.0] 4.64 (1.79) 6.0 [2.0] 5.64 (1.47) +1.0 [2.0] +1.00 (0.33, 1.67) 0.005 0.56 Partner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role 6.0 [2.0] 5.77 (1.27) 7.0 [1.0] 6.32 (1.13) +0.5 [1.0] +0.55 (0.14, 0.95) 0.01 0.43 Reflective Motivation: I see the value in and benefits of… Participate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board 6.0 [2.0] 6.00 (1.04) 7.0 [1.0] 6.74 (0.45) +1.0 [2.0] +0.74 (0.28, 1.19) 0.005 0.71 Review grant applications for SCI research (that include meaningful engagement of people living with SCI) 6.0 [2.0] (5.90, 1.02) 7.0 [1.0] (6.45, 1.14) +0.0 [1.0] +0.55 (-0.06, 1.15) 0.01 0.54 Partner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role 6.0 [1.0] (6.18, 1.01) 7.0 [1.0] (6.55, 1.10) +0.0 [1.0] +0.36 (-0.24, 0.97) 0.05 0.37 Additional Declarations There is no duality of interest Supplementary Files SupplementaryFile1PartnershipLog.docx Supplementary File 1 SupplementaryFile2AllSurveys.docx Supplementary File 2 SupplementaryFile3DescriptiveStatistics.docx Supplementary File 3 Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Spinal Cord → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: revise 09 Oct, 2025 Review # 2 received at journal 17 Sep, 2025 Review # 1 received at journal 14 Sep, 2025 Reviewer # 2 agreed at journal 03 Sep, 2025 Reviewer # 1 agreed at journal 14 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Jun, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 17 Jun, 2025 First submitted to journal 17 Jun, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6916049","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":476991360,"identity":"99a0017e-0efa-4e73-8c31-6218950a0049","order_by":0,"name":"Emily Giroux","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0119-8149","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emily","middleName":"","lastName":"Giroux","suffix":""},{"id":476991361,"identity":"552ef6b1-b092-4380-b0fd-cd7f47a469c8","order_by":1,"name":"Kenneth Noguchi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kenneth","middleName":"","lastName":"Noguchi","suffix":""},{"id":476991362,"identity":"b98e6f36-2c72-4f0a-b8df-812a0551cbc0","order_by":2,"name":"Barry Munro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barry","middleName":"","lastName":"Munro","suffix":""},{"id":476991363,"identity":"3739018e-619a-49f8-8023-3411e6d5cfd6","order_by":3,"name":"Gabriela Ocampo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gabriela","middleName":"","lastName":"Ocampo","suffix":""},{"id":476991364,"identity":"831ecd53-e91f-4ef9-a47c-4bc2403f5f43","order_by":4,"name":"Heather Gainforth","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3281-1110","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Heather","middleName":"","lastName":"Gainforth","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-17 15:51:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916049/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916049/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-025-01166-x","type":"published","date":"2026-01-23T05:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85836990,"identity":"d238a6b2-5324-40d0-a54c-a2de169b89bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 08:24:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46573,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe flow of participants throughout the SCI-RAC evaluation\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916049/v1/d9797802c1922e7247d14ba9.jpg"},{"id":101032462,"identity":"fd513e42-4a23-4917-a676-7c9b7cfdbfa0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-24 08:10:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1298358,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916049/v1/f0f95d51-95b8-4f74-816a-3ce427aa9569.pdf"},{"id":85835297,"identity":"fc6856a8-ebf0-4d80-a870-792817fa72de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 08:16:23","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":27995,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Supplementary File 1","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile1PartnershipLog.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916049/v1/3c39e95a28482624a05a0c0d.docx"},{"id":85836954,"identity":"7015e2d2-f1d6-4df1-8661-86bbdc03b517","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 08:24:24","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":56179,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary File 2\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile2AllSurveys.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916049/v1/4b39e53bcedef890a6841964.docx"},{"id":85835310,"identity":"ca8c268e-7f95-444a-9c04-5281296dec5f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-02 08:16:24","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":36947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSupplementary File 3\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryFile3DescriptiveStatistics.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916049/v1/b56cfa33d9339f9ce5ae65a8.docx"}],"financialInterests":"There is no duality of interest","formattedTitle":"Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance of an online spinal cord injury research advocacy course to train research partners","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePeoples living with spinal cord injury (SCI) have called for SCI research to be conducted in meaningful partnership (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), which involves engaging of the \u003cem\u003eright\u003c/em\u003e research users (i.e., individuals/groups/organizations that would benefit from/use the research findings) at the \u003cem\u003eright\u003c/em\u003e time throughout the research process (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these calls, peoples living with SCI still experience tokenism, which occurs when their involvement is to legitimize or endorse research, despite having little to no authority or influence (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium (NASCIC) is an SCI organization working to combat tokenism and promote meaningful engagement in SCI research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Through a membership survey, NASCIC learned their members had strong desires to set research priorities and co-design research studies, but felt they had minimal research knowledge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). To support their members\u0026rsquo; needs, NASCIC created the Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC): an online course aimed at increasing knowledge of the SCI research process to support meaningful engagement. While SCI-RAC is a potential solution to combat tokenism, it may only influence research partnerships if its desired outcomes are achieved by its intended users.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen seeking to understand the impact of interventions, evaluation frameworks can allow for structure and comprehensiveness (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). RE-AIM is one framework that addresses individual (i.e., \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003er\u003c/span\u003eeach, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ee\u003c/span\u003effectiveness, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003em\u003c/span\u003eaintenance) and setting-level (\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ea\u003c/span\u003edoption, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ei\u003c/span\u003emplementation, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003em\u003c/span\u003eaintenance) intervention domains, allowing for holistic examination during design, dissemination, and implementation phases. These reasons, combined with RE-AIM\u0026rsquo;s previous use in SCI behavioural interventions (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10 CR11\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e), supports the viability as a framework for evaluating SCI-RAC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite calls for more knowledge of how to partner in research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), increased knowledge \u003cem\u003ealone\u003c/em\u003e may not be enough to influence research partnerships. Partnering in research involves the enactment of behaviours, warranting an evaluation of SCI-RAC\u0026rsquo;s impact on \u003cem\u003ebehaviours\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe COM-B model, which suggests that enactment of any behaviour requires capability (physical, psychological), opportunity (physical, social), and motivation (automatic, reflective), allows for in-depth examination of influences on behaviour (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, its evidence-based linkages to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel allow for a detailed, user-friendly approach to developing behaviour change interventions (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR14\" citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). Considering its benefits and prominence in the contexts of SCI and research partnerships (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17 CR18 CR19\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e), the COM-B model may be useful for evaluating SCI-RAC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided by the individual-level domains of the RE-AIM Framework and the COM-B model, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of SCI-RAC. The following research questions were posed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eReach\u003c/b\u003e: (a) What was the absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of individuals who participated in the evaluation and in SCI-RAC? (b) Were participants\u0026rsquo; demographic factors associated with whether or not they completed SCI-RAC? (c) Beyond demographic factors, do participants\u0026rsquo; baseline levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation to \u003cem\u003epartner\u003c/em\u003e further explain the variance in course completion across participants?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEffectiveness\u003c/b\u003e: (a) Did SCI-RAC \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eimmediately\u003c/span\u003e increase knowledge and/or build capacity for partnering in SCI research? (b) Were participants \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eimmediately\u003c/span\u003e satisfied with the course and their learning experiences from the course?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMaintenance\u003c/b\u003e: Were changes in knowledge and/or capacity \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003emaintained over time\u003c/span\u003e?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA three-wave prospective study design was used. Using Qualtrics surveys, data were collected at three time points: pre-course (T1), immediately post-course (T2), and six-months post course completion (T3). The evaluation ran for one year from March 31st 2023 to March 31st, 2024.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eContext\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntervention: The Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSCI-RAC includes 12 video-based modules (topics listed in Supplementary File 1) to be completed in sequential order. Participants could not start the next module until passing a multiple-choice quiz. To maximize enrolment, NASCIC planned to share social media advertisements distribute postcards during conferences and events, and meet with their partners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy Procedures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003ewas obtained from the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H22-00816). At the beginning of each survey, participants were asked to indicate any relevant role(s) they held (e.g., person living with SCI, researcher, clinician, industry professional, etc.). Participants could select multiple roles (e.g., a person living with an SCI \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand\u003c/span\u003e a researcher), meaning there were instances of multiple responses to the same question.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants and Recruitment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePost-registration, all participants were prompted to answer the T1 survey or proceed to Module 1. Anyone registered for SCI-RAC was able to access the T1 survey, however participants could not enroll in the study at a later date after opting out.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReach indicators included 1) the total number of SCI-RAC registrants and graduates (individuals who completed the course), 2) total number of evaluation participants at T1, T2, and T3 and 3) description of participants\u0026rsquo; demographic and/or injury characteristics. At T1, participants self-reported their age, sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, level of education, country of residence, annual income, and place of residence. Injury-specific demographics included year of SCI, level, severity, cause, and types of mobility aids used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEffectiveness\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo outcomes were selected as primary effectiveness indicators: 1) knowledge of the SCI research process, and 2) perceived capacity to partner. To assess knowledge of the SCI research process, eight true or false statements were created and total number of correct responses were calculated (range: 0\u0026ndash;8). Correct answers were given one point, and any incorrect or \u0026ldquo;I don\u0026rsquo;t know\u0026rdquo; answers were given no points. A modified version of the brief COM-B questionnaire, which has demonstrated good acceptability, and evidence of predictive validity, discriminant validity, and test-retest reliability (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e), was used to assess perceived capacity to partner. Given the range of behaviours that can constitute partnering, NASCIC selected five to examine. Using a 7-point Likert Scale, participants indicated how their psychological capability (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 item), physical opportunity (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 item), social opportunity (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 item), and reflective motivation (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3 items) influenced their capacity to enact the behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning experiences and satisfaction were secondary effectiveness outcome measures. A modified version of a learning and satisfaction questionnaire, was used. informed by the Evaluation of Technology Enhanced Learning Materials for Learner Perceptions, was used (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e). Internal consistency was good for learning experiences (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18 items; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.84) and excellent for satisfaction (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8 items; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95), allowing for the reporting of aggregated scores. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert Scale, and open-ended questions were included after each item, allowing participants to explain their scores.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMaintenance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll COM-B questionnaire items and five items from the learning experiences and satisfaction questionnaire were re-assessed at T3. True/false questions were not repeated at T3. Surveys from all three timepoints are available in Supplementary File 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were performed using StataNow 18.5 BE.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the total number of people enrolled in SCI-RAC (regardless of course completion), the number of SCI-RAC graduates was divided by the number of SCI-RAC registrants. The proportion of retained participants between each timepoint was also examined. Descriptive statistics, such as means and interquartile ranges (IQRs) or frequencies and percentages were used to describe continuous and categorical demographic characteristics, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a secondary exploratory analysis, a two-step, hierarchical binomial logistic regression model was computed to examine the association between demographic factors and COM-B/TDF constructs (independent variables) and course completion (yes/no; dependent variable). In Step 1, age (continuous), gender identity (categorical: two levels), race (categorical: two levels), and presence/absence of SCI (categorical: two levels) were included as predictor variables. Previous literature has shown associations between these variables and course completion (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e), while absence/presence of SCI was added at NASCIC\u0026rsquo;s request. To allow for the direct comparison of odds ratios (ORs) across predictor variables, gender and race were treated as two-level categorical variables by removing the two individuals (1% of total responses) that identified as non-binary, and aggregating race responses as white/not white (only for this secondary analysis).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Step 2, psychological capability, physical opportunity, intention, and beliefs about capabilities (all continuous) for \u003cem\u003epartnering\u003c/em\u003e were added, as previous literature has highlighted relationships between these constructs and online course completion (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e). For each model, statistical significance of each predictor (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), ORs and 95% confidence intervals, and pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e values were reported. Model fit was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (χ\u0026sup2;). Model fit was compared between models using a likelihood ratio test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffectiveness and Maintenance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences between T1 and T2 for the primary effectiveness indicators. Medians and IQRs were reported given the skewness of the data. Effect sizes were calculated using Glass\u0026rsquo;s delta. We considered the effects as small (0.2), medium (0.5), large (0.8), and very large (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1.0) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). For participants who identified as having multiple roles (e.g., person living with SCI \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand\u003c/span\u003e researcher), our main analysis used their responses from the perspective of living with an SCI, as they were the original intended user for SCI-RAC. However, sensitivity analyses were conducted by replacing any responses from peoples living with SCI with their response from a researcher, clinician, or industry perspective to ensure this perspective was accounted. For the two behaviours only presented to peoples living with SCI, there were insufficient data to perform inferential statistics. For transparency, medians and IQRs without significance tests are presented in Supplementary File 3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedians, IQRs, minimum and maximum values were used to report on learning experiences and satisfaction. Open-ended questions were subjected to a directed content analysis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e), which focused on categorizing statements by positive feedback, negative feedback, and future course improvement recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine maintenance, the intended analysis was a linear mixed model examining the COM-B questions across all three timepoints. Wilcoxon-signed rank tests would once again be used to examine changes between T2 and T3 for the five items re-asked from the learning and satisfaction questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample Size\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs this is an effectiveness study and NASCIC was solely responsible for recruitment, the final sample size was based on the number of survey respondents at each stage. However, a sample size calculation based on previous work indicated that a sample size of 19 would be sufficient to detect medium to very large effect sizes (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.71\u0026ndash;1.72) with 80% power, at an alpha significance level of 0.05 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReach\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipant Demographics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 outlines the flow of participants over T2, T3 and the number of participants included in all reach and effectiveness primary and secondary analyses. Disaggregated demographic and injury data for participants are presented in Table 1. To protect participant confidentiality, frequencies for the specific roles of participants with \u0026ldquo;multiple roles\u0026rdquo; (e.g., researcher \u003cu\u003eand\u003c/u\u003e clinician) are not provided.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Figure 1]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 1]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eModels Predicting Course Completion\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Step 1, no demographic variables were statistically significant. Pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e indicated that 1.2% of the variance in course completion could be explained by the Step 1 predictor variables. The goodness-of-fit test yielded a non-significant result (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(8)=11.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e= 0.16), suggesting minimal evidence of poor fit. For Step 2, no predictor variables were statistically significant. However, Pseudo-R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e increased slightly, where the Step 2 model explained 9.0% of the variance in course completion. Goodness-of-fit test suggested minimal evidence of poor fit (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(8)=6.94, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e= 0.54).\u0026nbsp;The likelihood-ratio test was not significant, and the Step 2 model did not have superior fit compared to Step 1 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e=0.10), indicating that the addition of COM-B predictor variables did not further explain course completion. Table 3 includes ORs, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for each model step.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 2]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffectiveness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, there was a significant increase in knowledge of the SCI research process (T1: 6.0 [IQR=3.0], T2: 7.0 [IQR=1.0], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;0.001, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta= 0.50). For perceived capacity to partner, Table 4 provides descriptive statistics, p-values, and effect sizes for COM-B questionnaire items asked to \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e participants (i.e., engaging on consumer advisory boards, reviewing grants, partnering). For these three behaviours, there were significant increases in psychological capability (all \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026le; 0.02, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta= 0.57-0.59) and beliefs about consequences (all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026le; 0.05, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta= 0.37-0.71). For reviewing grant applications and partnering, there were significant increases in physical opportunity (reviewing grants: \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.02, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta= 0.50; partnering: \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.006, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta = 0.54) and belief in capabilities (reviewing grants: \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.005, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta=0.56; partnering: \u003cem\u003ep =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.01, Glass\u0026rsquo; delta=0.43). No significant differences were observed for social opportunity and intentions across any behaviours.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 3]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLearning Experiences and Satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants had positive experiences regarding satisfaction (T2: 7.0 [IQR=0.5], Min.=3.0, Max.=7.0) and learning experiences (T2: 6.0 [IQR=1.0], Min.=1.0, Max.=7.0). Responses to the open-ended questions further suggest that participants had positive and valuable experiences from participating in the course. Course successes included the integration of stories from the perspectives of peoples living with SCI, the integration of external resources throughout the course, and the course\u0026rsquo;s self-paced nature. Some participants also shared how SCI-RAC showed them the importance of integrating SCI lived experience in their work, with some even writing commitment statements for using course learnings in their role(s), or recommending the course be offered at a university/college level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcerning challenges, participants expressed that the course background music was distracting, as it was repetitive and participants could not turn it off. Moreover, not \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e course material was seen as relevant for all participants. For example, some participants were impressed with the amount of information on the physiology of their injury, while others felt there was too much focus on pre-clinical research. Some participants who identified as researchers felt that the physiology content was not necessary as it was irrelevant to lived experience engagement, while others felt the course showed them how to engage peoples living with SCI in pre-clinical and clinical SCI research. Many recommendations to improve the course stemmed from addressing the noted challenges such as removing background music and letting participants choose which modules to complete. Additional recommendations included increasing platform interactivity (e.g., a live instructor, interactive videos) and fixing technical glitches.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMaintenance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were sparse at T3, preventing a meaningful analysis. Instead, scores for each of the questions are presented descriptively with medians and IQRs in Supplementary File 3.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study was to examine the impact of SCI-RAC by examining the individual-level domains of the RE-AIM framework. To understand SCI-RAC\u0026rsquo;s broader impact and future directions, the results are discussed alongside pre-existing literature. Overall, this study provides initial evidence of the impact of SCI-RAC, while highlighting areas of improvement for future course iterations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evaluation initially drew in many participants at T1 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;230), but this number was not retained over T2 and T3. Participant drop-off was also observed in the total number of SCI-RAC participants, with only 27% having completed the course after one-year. While this completion rate is considered high for open, online courses (which have been estimated at 4\u0026ndash;15%)(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e), we could systematically evaluate NASCIC\u0026rsquo;s dissemination plan, making it difficult to understand the participant drop-off and strategize for greater reach and retention. Future course development and evaluation efforts should employ strategies such as the use of dissemination tracking surveys to note all course launch communications (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e), or interviewing participants to understand non-completion (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all timepoints, most participants were white, straight, highly educated, and of high socioeconomic status. At T1 and T3, most participants were female. Importantly, any effort to promote the reach of SCI-RAC should account for \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e eligible participants, not just certain demographics. With the exception of more women participating, our findings align with Nixon\u0026rsquo;s coin model of privilege, which highlights how individuals with certain identities (e.g., white, straight, high class) experience privilege (e.g., greater access and benefit) simply because of who they are (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e). Previous literature has shown that women tend to participate more in courses that are self-paced, allow for anonymous participation, and are not financially incentivized, which may explain the exception with gender(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, these observations highlight that SCI-RAC is not reaching equity-owed groups to the same extent, and future efforts should be undertaken to promote more inclusive participant recruitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile disaggregating participants\u0026rsquo; demographic data revealed identities that were not accessing and/or benefitting from the course, it is important to not ignore the intersecting nature of participants\u0026rsquo; identities or their role(s) when understanding participant representativeness. Notably, 32\u0026ndash;36% of \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e participants across \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e timepoints indicated holding \u0026ldquo;multiple roles\u0026rdquo; (e.g., person with SCI \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand\u003c/span\u003e researcher). Despite best intentions to examine the data from an intersectional lens, our sample size was not large enough without compromising participant confidentiality, statistical power, and risking tokenistic subgroup representation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Given this evaluation was not an efficacy or randomized control trial, \u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e priori strategies to promote larger sample sizes and meaningful representation, such as oversampling or stratified sampling (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e) were not in the research team\u0026rsquo;s control. While using sensitivity analyses to account for participants\u0026rsquo; multiple perspectives is one strategy to account for intersecting roles, our findings further support calls for more research being needed to examine participants\u0026rsquo; intersecting identities and roles in the context of SCI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings suggested that demographic and COM-B predictor variables are not associated with whether or not participants completed SCI-RAC. Previous studies in the context of physical disability and open, online courses have varied. For example, one study found significant differences in completion \u003cem\u003erates\u003c/em\u003e between people with and without multiple sclerosis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e), while an evaluation of an online course for physiotherapists on SCI care reported no differences between participants who did or did not complete the course (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). Given that our sample size was much smaller than these studies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2281\u0026ndash;2363), future examination of the relationship between demographic factors, COM-B constructs, and course completion would benefit from greater efforts to promote recruitment and retention of course participants, allowing for the use of interaction terms when examining this relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistically significant increases were observed in knowledge, psychological capability, physical opportunity, beliefs about capabilities, and beliefs about consequences, with effect sizes ranging from small to medium (Δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36 to 0.59). These findings demonstrate that SCI-RAC was successful in achieving its goals of improving knowledge of the SCI research process and perceived capacity to enact some behaviours that constitute partnering. Increases in physical opportunity to review grant applications and partner were promising to see, as limited time and resources have previously been identified as barriers to partnering in SCI research (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e). It is possible that increased knowledge helped participants feel less constrained by time and have increased awareness of resources, or other research teams that were partnering. Regarding motivation, there were no statistically significant increases in intention, which could suggest that participants were already motivated to meaningfully engage in SCI research. Importantly, if SCI-RAC is unable to address \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e COM-B constructs, it is unlikely to be effective at improving perceived capacity to partner. As such, it would be beneficial for NASCIC to consider linking the COM-B constructs where no changes were observed to the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify options for other interventions to target partnership capacity. For example, since no significant changes were observed in social opportunity, the Behaviour Change Wheel suggests that restriction, environmental restructuring, modelling, or enablement would be viable intervention functions to consider. NASCIC has started addressing this gap, as they are creating an SCI Research Matchmaking Platform (updates to be shared on the NASCIC website) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, participants were satisfied with SCI-RAC and had positive learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile this is the first study (to our knowledge) evaluating an online SCI research partnership course, previous open, online SCI courses have been created (e.g., physical activity counselling, physiotherapist management) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e). Similar to our findings, both courses also received mostly positive feedback, with participants either praising or recommending the inclusion of more \u0026lsquo;interactive\u0026rsquo; learning, and additional videos. However, we only received open-ended responses from participants who completed SCI-RAC, and it is possible that participants who did not complete the course felt differently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA notable strength of this work was adopting a partnered approach to the evaluation. While NASCIC was not positioned to influence the results, their involvement in deciding outcomes of interest ensured the relevance and usefulness of the evaluation findings for their operations. Pragmatically, NASCIC has already implemented feedback to improve SCI-RAC, and has introduced \u003cem\u003eSCI-RAC Lite\u003c/em\u003e, which allows users to complete modules most relevant to their roles and learning goals: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://nascic.org/course-profile/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://nascic.org/course-profile/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Regarding limitations, a lack of T3 responses prevented us from being statistically powered to examine maintenance. In the future, efforts to support participants to complete the course and evaluation surveys (e.g., reminder e-mails, participant incentives) should be considered. Second, we examined \u003cem\u003eperceived capacity\u003c/em\u003e to partner, and participants were only surveyed on five behaviours. Given that the \u003cem\u003eactual\u003c/em\u003e enactment of every behaviour constituting partnering was not examined, we cannot directly claim that SCI-RAC improves research partnerships. Future research would benefit from examining SCI-RAC\u0026rsquo;s impact on more behaviours, and examining actual rather than perceived capacity for partnering. Finally, while we worked with NASCIC to ensure the surveys would resonate with both Canadian and American participants, it is possible that some wording choices may have impacted how participants responded. For example, \u0026ldquo;consumer\u0026rdquo; has been critiqued for its suggestion of transactional relationships between peoples living with SCI and clinicians, yet is still widely used in health and community contexts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the participants from this evaluation reside in two countries, where differences in governance and research systems can impact how research partnerships behaviours are enacted, such as the administration of research funding. To enhance long-term uptake, future efforts to examine SCI-RAC need to account for these differences.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSCI-RAC demonstrated initial successes at increasing knowledge, and influencing psychological capability, physical opportunity, beliefs about capabilities, and beliefs about consequences for perceived capacity to partner in SCI research. Continued efforts are needed to ensure that SCI-RAC is reaching and benefitting not only a higher volume, but more diverse representation of individuals. To further enhance NASCIC\u0026rsquo;s impact, they can consider offering SCI-RAC alongside other initiatives aim to connect researchers and research users to create meaningful research partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical purposes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to acknowledge the North American Spinal Cord Consortium Community Engagement Working Group for their work in developing SCI-RAC and informing the design of the evaluation: John Basile, Andrew Stewart, Angele Parente, Claudia Garofalo, David Digby, Edward Grave, Ena Miller, Jake Beckstrom, Jeffra Welden, Jerrod Kerr, John Gensel, \u0026nbsp;Kim Beer, Kimblerly Pfleeger, John Kramer, Linda Bambrick, Lora Hornung, Nicole Smith, Susan Schaeffer, Tara Jeji, and William Bailey. The authors would also like to acknowledge Stacey Antonakis for her support with SCI-RAC’s LearnDash analytics. Finally, we would like to respectfully acknowledge that we work and live on traditional and unceded Indigenous territories as well as Treaty lands across Turtle Island which have long served as sites of meeting and exchange amongst nations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEEG, GO, BM, and HLG collaborated to conceptualize the study. EG led the development of data collection materials, which GO and BM reviewed the surveys to ensure relevance and usefulness for NASCIC. EG led and conducted the quantitative analysis and quantitative analysis. KSN supported and mentored EG with the quantitative analyses (study design, selection of statistical methods). As EG’s doctoral supervisor, HLG supervised EG throughout conducting the study. EG drafted the initial article and all authors provided feedback and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEG was supported by both a SSHRC Doctoral Award and a MITACS Accelerate Fellowship for this work.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement of Ethics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll applicable institutions and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human participants were followed during the course of this research. Ethical approval was obtained through the University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ezthics Board (H22-00816).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors do not have any competing interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson KD. Equitable partnerships between scientists and persons living with spinal cord injury will strengthen research scope, quality, and outcomes. Curr Opin Neurol. 2021;34(6):783\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson KD. Including People with Spinal Cord Injury in Research as Participants, Partners, and Personnel. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(15):6466.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGainforth HL, Hoekstra F, McKay R, McBride CB, Sweet SN, Martin Ginis KA, et al. Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles for Conducting and Disseminating Spinal Cord Injury Research in Partnership. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(4):656\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorse LR, Field-Fote EC, Contreras-Vidal J, Noble-Haeusslein LJ, Rodreick M, Shields RK, et al. Meeting Proceedings for SCI 2020: Launching a Decade of Disruption in Spinal Cord Injury Research. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38(9):1251\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen T, Graham ID, Mrklas KJ, Bowen S, Cargo M, Estabrooks CA, et al. How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMajid U. The Dimensions of Tokenism in Patient and Family Engagement: A Concept Analysis of the Literature. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(6):1610\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorth American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium. About Us [Internet]. 2024. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://nascic.org/about-us/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://nascic.org/about-us/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaw RB, Sweet SN, McBride CB, Adair WK, Martin Ginis KA. Operationalizing the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the collective impact of autonomous community programs that promote health and well-being. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):803.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweet SN, Michalovic E, Baxter K, Baron J, Gainforth HL. RE-AIMing conferences: a reach, effectiveness, and maintenance evaluation of the Rick Hansen Institute\u0026rsquo;s Praxis 2016. Transl Behav Med [Internet]. 2019 Feb 12 [cited 2025 Jan 5]; Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/tbm/ibz002/5315999\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/tbm/ibz002/5315999\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Tomasone JR, Latimer‐Cheung AE, Martin Ginis KA. Get In Motion: An Evaluation of the Reach and Effectiveness of a Physical Activity Telephone Counseling Service for Canadians Living With Spinal Cord Injury. PM\u0026amp;R. 2014;6(12):1088\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGainforth HL, Latimer-Cheung AE, Athanasopoulos P, Martin Ginis KA. Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a community-based organization implementing an event-based knowledge mobilization initiative to promote physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury among support personnel. Health Promot Pr. 2015;16(1):55\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichie S, Atkins L, West R. The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEtherington C, Rodrigues IB, Giangregorio L, Graham ID, Hoens AM, Kasperavicius D, et al. Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):169.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiroux EE, Casemore S, Clarke TY, McBride CB, Wuerstl KR, Gainforth HL. Enhancing participation while aging with spinal cord injury: applying behaviour change frameworks to develop intervention recommendations. Spinal Cord [Internet]. 2020 Sep 28 [cited 2021 May 18]; Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.nature.com/articles/s41393-020-00555-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.nature.com/articles/s41393-020-00555-8\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShwed A, Giroux EE, Hoekstra F, McKay RC, Schaefer L, West CR, et al. Supporting meaningful research partnerships: an interview study applying behavior change theory to develop relevant recommendations for researchers. Transl Behav Med. 2023;13(11):833\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWuerstl KR, McBride CB, Desch\u0026ecirc;nes-Bilodeau J, Hoekstra F, Gainforth HL. Exploring smoking cessation experiences among persons with spinal cord injury: Informing theory-based recommendations for interventions. Spinal Cord. 2023;61(1):27\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLucci VEM, McKay RC, McBride CB, McGrath MS, Willms R, Gainforth HL, et al. Barriers and facilitators to changing bowel care practices after spinal cord injury: a Theoretical Domains Framework approach. Spinal Cord. 2022;60(7):664\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKay RC, Wuerstl KR, Casemore S, Clarke TY, McBride CB, Gainforth HL. Guidance for behavioural interventions aiming to support family support providers of people with spinal cord injury: A scoping review. Soc Sci Med. 2020;246:112456.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeyworth C, Epton T, Goldthorpe J, Calam R, Armitage CJ. Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a brief measure of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (\u0026ldquo;COM-B\u0026rdquo;). Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25(3):474\u0026ndash;501.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCook DA, Ellaway RH. Evaluating technology-enhanced learning: A comprehensive framework. Med Teach. 2015;37(10):961\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrieve NJ, Cranston KD, Jung ME. Examining the Effectiveness of an E-Learning Training Course for Coaches of a Type 2 Diabetes Prevention Program. J Technol Behav Sci. 2023;9(2):180\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaikh UU, Asif Z. Persistence and Dropout in Higher Online Education: Review and Categorization of Factors. Front Psychol. 2022;13:902070.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManoj Kumar L, Stephen J, George R, Harikrishna G, Anisha P. Use of Effect Size in Medical Research: A Brief Primer on its Why and How. Kerala Journal of Psychiatry. 2022;35(1):78\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourvoisier M, Baddeliyanage R, Wilhelm L, Bayliss L, Straus SE, Fahim C. Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHood N, Littlejohn A. MOOC Quality: the need for new measures. J Learn Dev [Internet]. 2016 Nov 10 [cited 2025 Apr 7];3(3). Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/165\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/165\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShwed A, Hoekstra F, Bhati D, Athanasopoulos P, Chernesky J, Martin Ginis K, et al. IKT Guiding Principles: demonstration of diffusion and dissemination in partnership. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaan M, Toepoel V, Ongena Y, Janssen B. Recruiting non-respondents for a conversation about reasons for non-response: A description and evaluation. Surv Pract. 2024;17(1):1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNixon SA. The coin model of privilege and critical allyship: implications for health. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1637.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorante A, Djenidi V, Clark H, West S. Gender differences in online participation: examining a History and a Mathematics Open Foundation online course. Aust J Adult Learn. 2017;57(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBauer GR. Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:10\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBauer GR, Scheim AI. Advancing quantitative intersectionality research methods: Intracategorical and intercategorical approaches to shared and differential constructs. Soc Sci Med. 2019;226:260\u0026ndash;2.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClaflin SB, Campbell JA, Doherty K, Farrow M, Bessing B, Taylor BV. Evaluating Course Completion, Appropriateness, and Burden in the Understanding Multiple Sclerosis Massive Open Online Course: Cohort Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e21681.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlinsky JV, Ilha J, Xiong Y, Gomez G, Rostagnor S, Mart\u0026iacute;n-Manjarr\u0026eacute;s S, et al. The 2022 Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) to train physiotherapists in the management of people with spinal cord injuries: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of learners\u0026rsquo; experiences and its impact. Spinal Cord. 2023;61(11):615\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey LA, Glinsky JV, Lowe R, Lowe T. A Massive Open Online Course for teaching physiotherapy students and physiotherapists about spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord. 2014;52(12):911\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGainforth HL, Shwed A, Giroux EE, Hoekstra F, McKay RC, Schaefer L, et al. Transforming research systems for meaningful engagement: a reflexive thematic analysis of spinal cord injury researchers\u0026rsquo; barriers and facilitators to using the integrated knowledge translation guiding principles. Disabil Rehabil. 2024;1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoekstra F, Gainforth HL, Broeksteeg R, Corras S, Collins D, Eleftheriadou E, et al. The co-development and evaluation of an e-learning course on spinal cord injury physical activity counselling: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):240.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarvey LA. Words matter. Spinal Cord asks authors to choose their words carefully. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(4):257\u0026ndash;257.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1. Demographic Information for All Participants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 648px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en=total responses for each variable, presented as median [IQR] or n (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeneral Demographics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRole\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT1 (n=248)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT2 (n=50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT3 (n=22)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePerson living with SCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65 (26.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (16.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (22.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; SCI family member\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (6.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Researcher\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50 (20.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (28.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (27.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Clinician\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 (7.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Knowledge broker\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; SCI organization\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; staff/volunteer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (4.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (8.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (9.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; SCI policy maker or funder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Biotech/Industry staff\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot listed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMultiple roles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72 (30.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 (36.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (36.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge, years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194; 41[23]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=41; 35[19]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21; 34[23]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120 (61.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 (37.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (63.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69 (35.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29 (63.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (36.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender Identity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Woman\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116 (59.8)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 (31.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (63.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Man\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69 (35.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 (65.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (36.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Non-binary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (24.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRace\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=193\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Arab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Black\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (5.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (10.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (9.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;East Asian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (3.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (4.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;South Asian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (5.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Southeast Asian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;West Asian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;White\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e122 (63.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31 (67.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (47.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Multiracial/Multicultural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSexual Orientation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Asexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (3.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Bisexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (5.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (10.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Gay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Lesbian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Pansexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Queer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Straight\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147 (75.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32 (69.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 (81.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Two-Spirit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Unsure/Questioning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Below high school\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;High school\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (3.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (4.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Some university/college\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22 (11.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (9.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;University/college degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69 (35.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 (41.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (42.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Trades/apprenticeship\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;University/college \u0026amp; Trades/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;apprenticeship\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Post-graduate studies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86 (44.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 (43.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (38.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry of residence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Canada\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73 (36.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22 (43.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (52.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106 (55.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23 (53.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (47.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Mexico\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (5.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnual income\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026lt;$14,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (5.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (14.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; $15,000 to $29,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (7.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (8.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (4.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; $30,000 to $49,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26 (13.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (15.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (9.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; $50,000 to $79,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 (14.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (13.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (19.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026ge;$80,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67 (34.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (30.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (19.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInjury Demographics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerson with SCI*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT1 (n=90)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT2 (n=19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT3 (n=9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYears post-injury\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=73; 19[22]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=15; 13[14.5]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=9; 13[8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of Injury\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; C1-C4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (7.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (11.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; C5-C8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27 (34.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (27.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (44.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; T1-T6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (12.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; T7-T12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (12.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; L1-L5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (7.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (16.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Multiple Levels\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16 (20.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (16.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeverity of SCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Complete\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29 (36.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (44.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (44.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Incomplete\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46 (58.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (50.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (55.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCause of Injury\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Traumatic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69 (87.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 (94.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Non-Traumatic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (7.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (5.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: Prefer not to answer is included in the total n, but not included as a disaggregated. For injury demographics, *n counts include participants who indicated \u0026ldquo;person living with SCI AND another role\u0026rdquo; as their role.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Full Results of the Stepwise, Hierarchical Binomial Logistic Regression Models\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"687\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 1 OR [95% CI]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel 2 [OR, 95% CI]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 687px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic Factors\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.97 [0.94, 1.02]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98 [0.94, 1.02]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98 [0.34, 2.83]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21 [0.39, 3.79]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRace\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.08 [0.35, 3.36]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.03 [0.31, 3.42]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePresence/Absence of SCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01 [0.31, 3.31]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01 [0.29, 3.57]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 687px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCOM-B Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsychological Capability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40 [0.83, 2.36]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical Opportunity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.72 [0.45, 1.15]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41 [0.71. 2.79]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeliefs About Capabilities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09 [0.53, 2.21]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePseudo R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 175px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Overview of COM-B Questionnaire Data: Descriptive Statistics, Statistical Significance, and Effect Sizes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"860\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian [IQR]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian [IQR]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifference\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedian [IQR]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlass\u0026rsquo;s \u0026Delta;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 860px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychological Capability: I know how to\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.26 (1.74)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.30 (0.76)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.04 (0.25, 1.84)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.02\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.57\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReview grant applications for SCI research (that\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003einclude meaningful engagement\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof people living with SCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.0 [4.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.14 (1.91)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.27 (1.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.14 (0.37, 1.90)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.006\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.23 (1.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.95 (1.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.73 (0.34, 1.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 860px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhysical Opportunity: My physical environment provides me with the opportunity to\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [3.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.70 (1.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.13 (0.81)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.43 (-0.03, 0.90)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReview grant applications for SCI research (that\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003einclude meaningful engagement\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof people living with SCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.13 (1.46)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.86 (1.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.82 (0.15, 1.48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.02\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.50\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.27 (1.45)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.05 (1.21)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.77 (0.19, 1.35)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.006\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.54\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 860px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Opportunity: My social and/or professional network provides me with the opportunity to\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [3.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.56 (1.59)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.00 (0.95)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [3.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.43 (-0.19, 1.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReview grant applications for SCI research (that\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003einclude meaningful engagement\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof people living with SCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.04 (1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.55 (1.37)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.50 (-0.16, 1.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.64 (1.29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.09 (1.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.45 (-0.01, 0.92)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 860px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReflective Motivation: I want to\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.82 (1.18)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.5 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.36 (0.79)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.55 (0.04, 1.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReview grant applications for SCI research (that\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003einclude meaningful engagement\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof people living with SCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0 [3.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.05 (1.72)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.57 (1.33)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.90 (-0.13, 1.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.86 (1.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.5 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.09 (1.31)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.23 (-0.35, 0.81)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 860px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReflective Motivation: I am confident in my ability to\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.60 (1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.34 (0.71)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.74 (0.05,1.43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReview grant applications for SCI research (that\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003einclude meaningful engagement\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof people living with SCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.64 (1.79)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.64 (1.47)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.00 (0.33, 1.67)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.005\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.56\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.77 (1.27)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.32 (1.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.5 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.55 (0.14, 0.95)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.01\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 860px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReflective Motivation: I see the value in and benefits of\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipate/meaningfully engage on/with a community advisory board\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.00 (1.04)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.74 (0.45)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+1.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.74 (0.28, 1.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.005\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.71\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReview grant applications for SCI research (that\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003einclude meaningful engagement\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof people living with SCI)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [2.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(5.90, 1.02)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6.45, 1.14)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.55 (-0.06, 1.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.01\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartner with a researcher(s)/user(s) throughout the research process/in my role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6.18, 1.01)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(6.55, 1.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.0 [1.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+0.36 (-0.24, 0.97)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"spinal-cord","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Spinal Cord](http://www.nature.com/sc/)","snPcode":"41393","submissionUrl":"https://mts-sc.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Spinal Cord","twitterHandle":"@journalsci","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916049/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916049/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Design: \u003c/strong\u003eThree-wave prospective.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjectives: \u003c/strong\u003eExamine the impact of the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium’s Spinal Cord Injury Research Advocacy Course (SCI-RAC) using the RE-AIM framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSetting: \u003c/strong\u003eNorth America.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eThe RE-AIM domains for reach, effectiveness, and maintenance were assessed. Reach measures included participant enrollment (number and representativeness) and course completion. Primary effectiveness measures included changes in knowledge of the spinal cord injury (SCI) research process and perceived capacity to advocate/partner in research. Satisfaction and learning experiences were secondary effectiveness measures. Participant enrollment, perceived capacity to advocate/partner, and five satisfaction and learning experiences questions on overall knowledge and application were repeated as maintenance measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eOf the 248 participants who completed the pre-survey, 20% (n=50) and 9% (n=22) completed the course (and the post-survey) and 6-month surveys, respectively. Most participants who completed SCI-RAC were white (67%) and of high socioeconomic status (30%). No associations were found between demographics, perceived capacity to partner, and course completion. Significant improvements were observed in participants’ knowledge of the SCI research process (Glass’ delta= 0.50, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001) and perceived capacity to partner (e.g., capability: Glass’ delta=0.59, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001). Participants reported high levels of satisfaction and positive learning experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions: \u003c/strong\u003eSCI-RAC showed initial improvements in course participants’ knowledge and perceived capacity to partner, and participants were satisfied with the course. Findings suggest that NASCIC may want to review their recruitment strategies to reach more equity-owed groups and consider offering SCI-RAC alongside interventions that connect researchers and research users to continue improving the practice of SCI research partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, and maintenance of an online spinal cord injury research advocacy course to train research partners","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-02 08:16:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916049/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"revise","date":"2025-10-09T14:55:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-09-17T18:45:07+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-09-14T21:46:59+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-09-03T17:40:12+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2025-08-14T17:32:32+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-26T16:31:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-06-20T15:10:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-06-17T15:49:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Spinal Cord","date":"2025-06-17T15:49:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"spinal-cord","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Spinal Cord](http://www.nature.com/sc/)","snPcode":"41393","submissionUrl":"https://mts-sc.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Spinal Cord","twitterHandle":"@journalsci","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"372982c1-46dd-4b28-9d01-8a930c38e6cf","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":50652633,"name":"Health sciences/Medical research/Outcomes research"},{"id":50652634,"name":"Health sciences/Medical research/Translational research"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-24T08:09:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6916049","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-025-01166-x","journal":{"identity":"spinal-cord","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Spinal Cord"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-23 05:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 23rd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-02 08:16:15","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41393-025-01166-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-025-01166-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6916049","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6916049","identity":"rs-6916049","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}