Identifying Practices for Meaningful Health Research Partnerships: Series of Rapid Environmental Scans

Identifying Practices for Meaningful Health Research Partnerships: Series of Rapid Environmental Scans | 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 Research Article Identifying Practices for Meaningful Health Research Partnerships: Series of Rapid Environmental Scans Alanna Shwed, Lauren Finlay, Parres Holliday, Khushi Brar, Megan Lambrecht, and 15 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8713739/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 13 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Research coproduction is central to meaningful, equitable knowledge translation, yet partnerships lack practical, actionable guidance for implementation. The Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Guiding Principles articulate values for partnership but remain difficult to operationalize in practice. Objective To descriptively synthesize reported research-partnership practices across seven domains and inform the development of actionable guidance that aligns with the IKT Guiding Principles. Scan topic domains include: ( 1 ) reporting, ( 2 ) communication and meetings, ( 3 ) training and education, ( 4 ) conflict management, ( 5 ) co-authorship, ( 6 ) agreements, and ( 7 ) collaborative product ownership. Methods We conducted seven rapid environmental scans. The protocol was co-developed with partners and registered on OSF. MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO were searched and supplemented by targeted reference lists and grey-literature searches. Eligibility required a research partnership between at least one researcher and one research user. Dual verification was used for screening and data extraction. Data were synthesized descriptively; effectiveness was not assessed. Results Across the seven scans, the literature reported concrete practices within each domain. Common reporting practices included describing context, governance, roles, and reflexivity. Communication guidance emphasized formal plans/charters, inclusive facilitation, pre-/post-meeting routines, multiple formats, and culturally grounded approaches. Training programs integrated technical skills with relational competencies (trust, reflexivity, cultural humility), co-learning models, mentorship, and experiential methods. Conflict guidance promoted early role/decision clarity, embedded communication norms, routine reflection, and stepwise procedures. Co-authorship practices favored contribution-based models, written agreements, partner inclusion/collective authorship, and capacity-building. Agreements functioned as living documents covering governance, conflict, authorship/IP, data stewardship, and ethical/cultural principles. Ownership was framed as negotiated, co-determined, and procedurally explicit. Conclusions Reported practices cluster into relational processes and structural mechanisms that jointly support equitable collaboration. This synthesis offers a foundational, practice-oriented map to inform future tools and guidance for implementing the IKT Guiding Principles. Future work should test transferability and effectiveness across contexts and examine institutional enablers of sustained partnership. Co-production Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Partnership Synthesis Practices Processes Plain English Summary There is growing expectation that research be conducted in partnership with the people and communities it aims to benefit. Despite this, many research teams lack clear, practical guidance on how to carry out meaningful research partnerships in practice. This paper synthesizes findings from seven rapid environmental scans to identify concrete practices that research teams report using to support collaboration across a range of research settings. The scans extracted specific actions, processes, and structures that enable partnership to function in practice. These included clear governance and role definition, regular and transparent communication, shared decision-making, support for learning and capacity building, and explicit agreements around authorship and ownership. By bringing together evidence that is often scattered across disciplines and sources, this paper provides actionable insight to support research teams, institutions, and funders seeking to strengthen partnership-based approaches and advance the science and practice of collaborative research. Introduction Research coproduction and partnerships are recognized as important components for advancing knowledge translation (KT) and ensuring that health research processes and outcomes are both meaningful and impactful ( 1 – 4 ). Meaningful research partnerships are characterized by reciprocity, transparency, shared decision-making, and attention to power relations ( 5 , 6 ). However, despite growing recognition of their importance, such partnerships remain challenging to establish and sustain. Structural inequities, power dynamics, and a lack of practical guidance often undermine intentions for equitable collaboration ( 7 , 8 ). Previous research has identified recurring barriers, including misaligned expectations, insufficient conflict-resolution processes, and unclear institutional policies related to authorship and ownership ( 7 , 8 ). Yet, collaborative approaches that bring together researchers and research users continue to demonstrate potential to avoid tokenism, enhance relevance, and improve outcomes and impacts ( 3 , 9 – 11 ). Despite the importance of attention to process, power, and relationships in research and implementation, many fields focused on improving outcomes and quality of life, such as spinal cord injury (SCI) research, have historically been dominated by biomedical, positivist approaches that overlook the processes of partnering ( 12 ). Further, insights from SCI research and the broader disability community, highlight that even when research has been conducted in partnership it is often critiqued as being tokenistic ( 3 ). In response to these challenges, the Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Guiding Principles were developed ( 3 ). These principles were co-developed by a multidisciplinary team of researchers, funders, clinicians, community-based organizations, and people living with and/or affected by SCI ( 3 ). These eight principles offer a values-based list for guiding meaningful partnership throughout the research process ( 3 ). While developed for the SCI context, they reflect broader values, such as respect, trust, and mutual benefit, that may resonate across partnered research fields. While the IKT Guiding Principles articulate what meaningful partnership should embody, they remain largely aspirational and lack practical, actionable, and accessible guidance for implementation ( 7 , 8 ). Without specific strategies, teams report challenges putting the Principles into practice ( 7 , 8 ). To address these gaps, the IKT Guiding Principles Partnership initiated a multi-phase program of work to strengthen the evidence base for meaningful engagement in research partnerships. Meaningful engagement is defined as contributing to and influencing a personal and socially meaningful research, dissemination, and/or implementation goal and feeling a sense of responsibility to others (e.g., the research team, organizations, people with lived experience of SCI, etc.) ( 7 , 8 ). A central component of this work involves identifying specific partnership practices, defined broadly as interventions, programs or services, strategies, or procedures ( 13 ), that can be integrated into future guidance and tools. This paper contributes to that effort by presenting a synthesis of reported practices across key aspects of partnership processes, offering a cross-sector map of what is currently being done. While situated within the IKT Guiding Principles program, the findings advance the broader science of research partnership by identifying transferable practices relevant across health and social research contexts. The objective of this study was to descriptively synthesize reported research partnership practices across seven domains: 1) reporting, 2) meeting and communication, 3) training, 4) conflict management, 5) co-authorship, 6) agreements, and 7) ownership. The overarching goal is to provide a foundational evidence base that can inform future development of actionable guidance aligned with the IKT Guiding Principles. Despite growing calls for evidence-informed approaches to research coproduction, limited syntheses exist of the concrete strategies that teams use, particularly those addressing both relational and structural dimensions in partnership work ( 14 – 16 ). Rapid environmental scans offer a pragmatic way to capture this scattered evidence base, identify actionable practices, and generate insights that can guide implementation and evaluation ( 17 – 19 ). In doing so, this study addresses a key gap: the absence of synthesized, practice-oriented evidence to inform both interpersonal and structural aspects of partnership work ( 16 ). Methods We selected rapid environmental scans as a pragmatic synthesis method that balances rigour with feasibility, while capturing a large source of data in a timely manner ( 17 , 20 , 21 ). Unlike systematic reviews, which aim for exhaustive retrieval and appraisal of all relevant literature, rapid scans streamline screening and data extraction processes, prioritizing speed and relevance over comprehensiveness ( 17 , 20 , 21 ). This rapid scan approach meets partner-identified needs for timely, usable evidence to inform ongoing efforts to support implementation of the IKT Guiding Principles in research partnerships. Our approach was guided by the rapid review guidebook from the Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools ( 21 ) and supplemented by Cochrane rapid review principles ( 22 ) and the work of Tricco and colleagues ( 17 , 18 ). There are five steps that guided this work: 1) Setting the research question: topic refinement; 2) Setting eligibility criteria; 3) Searching; 4) Study selection; and 5) Data extraction and appraisal. Our rapid environmental scan design enabled us to incorporate new information not previously identified in our initial scan ( 19 ), thus maintaining responsiveness to partner needs and new learnings (e.g., when partners came across new relevant information). Our approach aimed to identify, extract, and synthesize guidance and practices across key topics of research partnership processes. Further, aligned with our partnership’s values of accessibility and transparency, the protocol for this rapid environmental scan was co-developed and registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) on December 3rd, 2023. Step 1: Setting the Research Question: Topic Refinement The development and refinement of research questions for this project were informed through a rigorous, evidence and partner-informed process that included consultation with the IKT Guiding Principles partnership ( 23 ), alignment with the partnership RECIPE framework ( 24 ), and previous research partnership agendas ( 1 , 2 ). Insights from prior work identifying barriers and facilitators to adopting the IKT Guiding Principles ( 7 , 8 ) also informed this selection. The research team developed an initial list of potential scan topics based on prior work and literature gaps, which was then reviewed and discussed during an online meeting and then through consensus over email with the whole partnership. Through this partner and evidence-informed process, the scan topics (Table 1 ) were refined to address specific challenges and practical needs for research partnerships, contributing to the foundation of practices that will inform research partnership guidance. Table 1 Rapid Scan Topics Rapid Scan Date of Search Medline (Ovid), PsychINFO Date of Search Grey-Literature (Google) Scan 1: Reporting December 3rd, 2023 July 31st, 2024 Scan 2: Communication and meeting December 8th, 2023 August 2nd, 2024 Scan 3: Training and education December 8th, 2023 July 29th, 2024 Scan 4: Conflict management December 8th, 2023 July 31st, 2024 Scan 5: Co-authorship March 28th, 2024 July 31st, 2024 Scan 6: Partnership agreements December 3rd, 2023 July 31st, 2024 Scan 7: Collaborative product ownership December 4th, 2024 December 10th, 2024 Topics such as partnership evaluation ( 25 ), dedicated partnership funding ( 26 ), remuneration guidance ( 27 ), and competencies required for IKT ( 28 , 29 ) were identified as important; however, they were not included in the scans due to recent reviews on these topics (i.e., published since 2024). The practices identified through this work will contribute to a larger list of partnership practices endorsed by the IKT Guiding Principles Partnership team as strategies that can enact the IKT Guiding Principles in practice. Step 2: Setting Eligibility Criteria Eligibility criteria were informed by previous work that identified research partnership practices ( 24 , 25 ) clarified with input from a library information speciality using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework ( 30 ). Studies from any field or topic area were considered for inclusion; no date restrictions were applied. To be eligible, studies needed to meet the definition of a research partnership as “individuals, groups, or organizations engaged in collaborative research activity involving at least one researcher (e.g., academic institution affiliate) and any research user (e.g., policymaker, healthcare administrator, community agency, charities, networks, or patients)” ( 24 ). We included both studies primarily focused on partnership processes (e.g., evaluations, frameworks, or implementation studies) and those where partnership practices were described in the context of broader research (e.g., methods sections, reflections). Editorials, commentaries, and protocols were excluded unless they provided actionable descriptions of partnership-related practices. As part of our rapid scan methodology, we limited inclusion to English-language, full-text sources and focused on two databases (MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO) to balance comprehensiveness with feasibility. For grey literature and additional sources, screening was limited to google, reference lists, and specific registries after primary abstract and full-text screening, allowing the identification of potentially missed studies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria for each scan can be found on OSF. Step 3: Searching The search strategy for each scan was developed in collaboration with a librarian information specialist to ensure comprehensive coverage and conceptual clarity and can be found on OSF. Further, search terms were informed by previous scans and reviews related to research partnership ( 24 , 25 ). A peer-reviewed search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid) and tested in collaboration with the librarian to balance sensitivity and scope. To capture scope efficiently and align it with rapid scan methods, the primary search for each scan focused on MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO, capturing health and psychology-based literature relevant to research partnerships. Search term clusters related to "research partnership" and "partnered research" were peer-reviewed by the academic librarian to ensure clarity across diverse partnership approaches. The search strategy restricted literature to English-language sources, as language was a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. Grey literature and supplemental searches were limited to targeted sources identified by partners and Google. Google was searched to capture relevant unpublished work, as grey literature often provides insights not available in peer-reviewed sources. Covidence software ( 31 ) was used to identify and remove duplicates, both automatically and manually, ensuring a streamlined dataset for initial screening. Step 4: Study Selection The study selection process employed a multi-stage screening approach to ensure consistency and reduce bias. Title and abstract screening began with two reviewers independently screening at least 20% of abstracts for each scan, resolving any conflicts through discussion. For the remaining abstracts, a single primary reviewer conducted the screening, while a secondary reviewer independently screened all excluded abstracts to verify accuracy and resolve any further conflicts. Full-text screening followed a similar dual-review model. Two reviewers independently screened at least 20% of full-text articles for each scan, again resolving conflicts through consensus. For the remaining full texts, a single reviewer conducted the primary screening of included studies, while a second reviewer screened all excluded full texts to confirm alignment with inclusion criteria and reduce the risk of bias. The first author (AS) was the primary reviewer for all scans and steps. Co-authors (LF, PH, KB, ML, EG, MS, CS) acted as the secondary reviewer for individual scans. This screening process ensured the inclusion of studies relevant to each scan topic while maintaining rigor and minimizing bias. Step 5: Data Extraction and Appraisal Data extraction and appraisal followed a structured, multi-step approach. A single reviewer initially extracted data relevant to the study’s aims, including detailed information about tools, contexts, and links to full resources. A second reviewer independently checked all extracted data for accuracy and completeness. Given the descriptive aim and rapid design, we conducted a source credibility and practical utility appraisal (RADAR ( 32 ) and CRAAP-informed ( 33 ), with partnership-specific adaptations) to evaluate relevance, provenance/authority, clarity of presentation, purpose, and methodological description. We did not perform risk-of-bias assessment or effectiveness grading. For each included source, we extracted any reported practices or guidance relevant to the scan topic. Extracted content included concrete actions (e.g., meeting practices, authorship protocols), descriptions of processes (e.g., decision-making, role negotiation), and contextual notes where applicable. Assessing effectiveness or outcomes was beyond the scope of this synthesis; our aim was to compile descriptive accounts of how partnership practices were reported and operationalized in the literature. While some strategies may be readily transferable, others represent general principles or context-dependent suggestions that require further development to become fully actionable. As such, the findings should be viewed as a foundational map of reported practices, rather than a definitive set of implementation-ready recommendations. The full lists of extracted strategies are available on OSF. Results Each scan produced a separate Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) figure. Some articles were relevant to multiple scan topics and were therefore included in more than one synthesis. Refer to OSF for all PRISMA figures and included sources by scan topic with indication of any overlapping citations across scans. Rapid Scan 1: Research Partnership Reporting Guidance Across 26 sources, authors identified practices and recommendations for reporting research partnerships in ways that enhance transparency, equity, and reproducibility (24,34–58). Fifteen sources (58%) emphasized reporting of partnership structure and context, including research setting, team composition, partner affiliations, funding sources, and partnership duration (34,37,39,44–47,49–54,56,58). These sources explained that contextual detail helps readers interpret outcomes and consider transferability across settings (24,35,49). Governance and decision-making processes were highlighted in ten papers (39%) (35,39,47–49,52–54,56,57), which described leadership models, communication and decision pathways, authorship and credit processes, and data-sharing or conflict-resolution mechanisms. Review sources noted that explicit governance reporting helps make power structures visible by clarifying who holds authority, how decisions are made, and how disagreements are resolved (24,35,49). Thirteen sources (50%) discussed or modeled reporting of partner roles and responsibilities (37,39–41,43,44,48,50–52,54,56,58). Authors recommended describing who contributed at each stage of the research process (e.g., design, data collection, analysis, dissemination), how roles evolved, and how these were recognized (24,35,48,50,51). This transparency in reporting was described as critical for assessing the level and authenticity of participation (24,35,49). Several sources (31%) described the reporting of partnership principles and values such as reciprocity, respect, co-learning, shared benefit, and Indigenous self-determination (34,36,37,43,45,52–54). Others focused on dissemination and authorship practices , describing how to specify who was involved in dissemination planning, the communication formats used (e.g., community briefings, media, infographics), and how partner preferences shaped these decisions (35,41,45,48–52,54,58). Seven sources (27%) called for explicit reflexivity and challenge reporting , encouraging authors to document tensions, power imbalances, and lessons learned as legitimate findings (39,42,45,47,52,54,58). Finally, three review sources provided explicit reporting recommendations (24,35,49). Hoekstra et al (24) advised that publications describe partnership principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts; specify who was involved at each stage; and disclose contextual and relational factors influencing results. Parry et al (49) recommended including governance arrangements, meeting structures, decision-making processes, funding agreements, authorship and compensation policies, and dissemination plans. Cassidy et al (35) emphasized reporting researcher and knowledge-user roles, engagement frequency, barriers and facilitators, and methods used to evaluate or reflect on partnership quality. Rapid Scan 2: Research Partnership Communication and Meeting Guidance Across 33 sources, communication and meeting practices were consistently identified as central to equitable, transparent, and sustainable partnerships (1,24,58–88). Authors described communication as both a structural mechanism for coordination and a relational process that sustains trust, inclusion, and shared decision-making (24,64,65,87). Nineteen sources (58%) emphasized the need for structured and ongoing communication processes to keep all partners informed and engaged (1,58,60,67–70,73–81,84,86,88). Common recommendations included developing formal communication plans or charters that outlined meeting frequency, contact modes, response expectations, and documentation procedures (1,74,75,77,80). Several studies (24%) detailed how sharing agendas, minutes, and action summaries, as well as maintaining shared digital workspaces such as Teams or Slack, enhanced transparency and collective accountability (58,67,74–76,78,80,81). Meeting facilitation and structure were identified in fourteen sources (42%) as critical to equitable participation (58,60,65,68,69,71,73,75–77,80,84,85,88). Strategies included rotating or co-facilitating meetings, appointing neutral facilitators, dedicating time for reflection or debrief, and alternating times or venues to support accessibility (58,60,65,68,69,71,73,75–77,80,84,85,88). Seventeen sources (52%) further emphasized the value of pre-meeting preparation (58,60,63,66–71,73–76,80,84–86), such as sending materials in advance, clarifying decision authority, reviewing terminology, and flagging agenda items requiring consensus. Kothari et al (71) specifically recommended “pre-brief” and “de-brief” sessions to help partners with lived experience participate confidently. Post-meeting and between-meeting communication was also frequently discussed, with sixteen sources (49%) describing follow-up summaries, newsletters, and informal check-ins as mechanisms to maintain accountability and momentum (58,60,63,67,68,70,74–78,80,81,84–86). Documenting and sharing key decisions was viewed as a concrete way to sustain trust and reduce information asymmetry among partners (58,75,80). Twelve sources (36%) highlighted multiple communication formats, hybrid, teleconference, and shared online platforms, to support accessibility and inclusion (58,60,63,65,67–69,75,76,80,84,86). Communication modes were often co-selected and revisited to accommodate technological comfort and geography (58,60,63,65,67–69,75,76,80,84,86). Eleven papers (33%) described tailoring communication to partner context and accessibility, through translation, plain-language materials, cultural protocols, and equitable voice for partners with less institutional power (59,62,63,65,66,69,76,77,79,80,85). Indigenous and community-based projects emphasized storytelling, ceremony, and culturally grounded openings (71,85). Informal communication and relationship-building were also recognized as essential elements of successful partnerships, with nine studies emphasizing the value of casual check-ins or “coffee chats” to foster psychological safety, particularly in virtual or hybrid environments (58,60,61,69,76,78,83,84,87). Eight sources (24%) explicitly framed communication as an ethical or philosophical principle of partnership rather than solely an operational task (24,59,62,64,65,77,81,85). These sources argued that communication not only transmits information but also redistributes power, ensures accountability, and affirms respect and reciprocity (24,59,62,64,65,77,81,85). Finally, reviews and case studies provided explicit recommendations on what should be reported or standardized for partnership communication (24,74,75,81). Salsberg et al (81) advised documenting communication frequency, channels, and how absent partners were updated. McCutcheon et al (74,75) recommended reporting meeting frequency, attendance, modes, and decision-tracking mechanisms to demonstrate authentic partnership. Hoekstra et al (24) similarly identified communication as a core reporting domain, urging teams to describe both the relational dimensions of trust-building and power-sharing, and the logistical aspects of meeting structure and feedback systems. Rapid Scan 3: Research Partnership Training & Education Across 19 sources, partnership training and education programs aimed to strengthen the individual, relational, and institutional capabilities required for meaningful, equitable research collaboration (49,89–106). Collectively, they advanced a growing consensus that training should integrate both technical skills (e.g., research methods, governance) and relational competencies (e.g., trust-building, reflexivity, cultural humility) (89,90,97–99). Fourteen sources (74%) described taught or recommended core training competencies that included communication, partnership development, research ethics, reflexivity, and cultural humility (89,91–93,95,97–105). These sources recommended that curricula include explicit learning objectives around trust, communication, power-sharing, and co-learning, and that these objectives be reported alongside details of training content and delivery format (90,93,97,100). Eight programs (42%) incorporated co-learning and mutual-teaching models, positioning academic and community participants as co-educators and co-facilitators (89,92,93,98–100,102,106). These sources detailed how facilitation power was balanced and how partner expertise informed course design, such as rotating facilitation roles (95), co-teaching between academic and lived-experience facilitators (99), and documenting co-design principles that guide curriculum delivery (100,102). Ten sources (53%) embedded equity, power, and historical context into training content, recommending that publications report how colonial histories, structural inequities, and cultural-safety frameworks were integrated into teaching (89,91–93,97–101,103). Six sources (32%) went further, calling for explicit reporting of cultural and relational safety mechanisms, such as Indigenous-led facilitation (93), ceremony or storytelling methods (97,106), and the creation of ethical spaces that support inclusion and restoration rather than extraction (89,99,100). Nine sources (47%) emphasized mentorship and relational continuity as essential to sustained learning, urging that training reports include mentoring structures, feedback loops, and follow-up mechanisms to show how learning translates into partnership practice (90,92,97,98,100,101,104–106). Seven sources (37%) described interactive and experiential approaches, such as scenario-based problem solving, role-playing, and site visits, that immerse trainees in community contexts, noting that documenting these methods improves reproducibility and facilitates adaptation across settings (89,92,93,95,98,100,106). Five programs (26%) adopted online or hybrid delivery formats to enhance accessibility and sustainability, recommending that publications detail delivery structure, facilitation format, technological platforms, and adaptations for remote participation (91,93,98,101,104). Four sources (21%) emphasized acknowledgment of historical mistrust as both content and relational practice, advocating that documentation describe how lived experience and history were integrated through storytelling, acknowledgment rituals, or dialogue-based reflection (93,97,99,103). Finally, three guidance and review sources offered overarching recommendations for reporting partnership training (49,91,104). Tait and Williamson (104) identified four essential reporting elements, learning objectives, core competencies, training duration/format, and evaluation approach, arguing that omitting these details limits reproducibility. Parry et al (49) recommended describing how learning is shared between researchers and partners, how barriers are addressed, and how partnership skills are maintained. Chen et al (91) emphasized documenting how training aligns with partnership principles, equity, co-learning, and sustainability, and how it prepares participants to navigate institutional constraints on collaboration. Rapid Scan 4: Research Partnership Conflict Management Guidance Across 17 sources, authors consistently characterized conflict as a natural and expected feature of collaborative research that, when addressed transparently, can deepen trust and strengthen partnerships (24,49,58,107–120). Reported sources of conflict most often related to issues of power, process, and resources (24,49,58,107–120). Financial and resource disparities were identified in six sources (35%), including delayed subcontracts, inequitable compensation, reimbursement barriers, and uneven workload burdens for community partners (58,107,108,111,113,118). Eight sources (47%) described tension arising from role ambiguity and power imbalances, where unclear responsibilities, unequal decision authority, or discrepancies in leadership and credit strained relationships (49,58,109,111,113,115,117,120). Similarly, eight sources (47%) highlighted competing priorities and timelines, particularly differences between service delivery and academic publication goals, or mismatched expectations about project pace and outputs (58,108,110,111,115–118). Broader organizational and disciplinary culture clashes also contributed to conflict, with six sources (35%) describing how divergent definitions of rigor, administrative processes, and institutional hierarchies constrained equitable participation (109–112,114,117). Ten sources (59%) described proactive strategies designed to anticipate or limit conflict escalation (58,107–114,117). Commonly reported recommendations involved jointly defining roles, expectations, and decision authority early in the partnership (49,58,108,109,111,112,115). Several sources (41%) further advised embedding explicit communication and feedback norms into partnership documents such as MOUs, progress reports, and governance frameworks to ensure clarity and accountability (49,58,110–113,117). Six sources (35%) described structuring regular reflection opportunities and check-ins to surface emerging tensions, such as periodic role reviews, dedicated meetings, or the use of structured tasks like logic-model redevelopment to shift focus from personal conflict toward collective problem-solving (58,108,109,114,116,117). Formal mechanisms for conflict management were identified in seven sources (41%) (49,58,110–113,117). These included the use of written procedures or stepwise conflict-resolution plans, neutral facilitation or shared leadership models, and transparent approaches to budget and authorship governance (49,58,110–113,117). Eleven sources (65%) highlighted open communication and relational transparency as central to conflict prevention and repair, emphasizing honesty, early dialogue, and safe spaces for dissent (24,49,58,107–109,112,115–118). Finally, several sources (29%) emphasized that trust, equity, and history shapes whether conflict becomes destructive or transformative, particularly within community and Indigenous partnerships, where attention to historical power dynamics and cultural safety can determine whether tension reinforces or restores relationship integrity (24,108,115,117,118). Rapid Scan 5: Research Partnership Co-Authorship Guidance Across 12 sources, co-authorship was described as both a technical process for allocating credit and a relational practice that recognizes diverse forms of expertise (35,49,119,121–129). Six sources (50%) emphasized establishing explicit criteria and procedures up front, drawing on ICMJE and related editorial standards, using written authorship agreements, contribution tracking, and documented order-of-authorship rules, with provisions to renegotiate as roles evolve (49,122,125,126,128,129). Five sources (42%) converged on contribution-based authorship (not role/title-based), explicit prohibition of honorary/ghost authorship, early discussion of order, written records of decisions, and, where needed, neutral mediation (49,125,126,128,129). Participatory/IKT literature in six sources (50%) reported inclusive practices that invite non-academic partners into conception, drafting, review, and dissemination, with frequent endorsement of collective/organizational authorship and partner approval prior to submission, especially in Community Based Participatory Research and Indigenous contexts (49,119,121,122,124,127). Three sources (25%) explicitly documented variability in what counts as a “minimum” contribution, ranging from required writing, to writing on behalf of a collective, to non-writing intellectual/experiential input when substantive (49,122,123). To promote equitable participation in publishing, five sources (42%) described capacity-building supports such as paired mentoring, collaborative writing workshops, co-editing processes, and tailoring outputs for multiple audiences (49,119,122,125,127). Seven sources (58%) depicted authorship planning as an ongoing, transparent process revisited across the project lifecycle to reflect evolving contributions and to sustain fairness, trust, and accountability (49,119,122,125,126,128,129). Rapid Scan 6: Research Partnership Agreement Guidance Nineteen sources described the use of formal partnership agreements to define, operationalize, and sustain collaborative research relationships (37,47,49,77,113,130–143). Agreements were described as memoranda of understanding (MOUs), research or data-sharing agreements, codes of conduct, or charters (37,47,49,77,113,130–143). Twelve sources (63%) recommended developing agreements early in the collaboration to establish shared goals, partner roles, and governance processes (47,49,77,130,133–139,143), and three (16%) highlighted the need to revisit and update agreements as partnerships evolve (49,137,141). Six sources (32%) specified detailing partner roles/responsibilities and shared decision-making/governance in the agreement (49,130,136,140,141,143). Conflict-resolution and termination clauses were also common, appearing in ten sources (53%) as key mechanisms for addressing disputes, unexpected project changes, or partnership dissolution (49,77,113,130,136,137,139,141–143). Fourteen sources (74%) explicitly addressed authorship, intellectual property, and data ownership, including who could publish, how authorship would be determined, and how data would be stored, shared, and destroyed (37,47,49,77,130–134,136,138,139,141,143). Nine sources (47%) emphasized that agreements should reflect ethical and cultural principles, including respect, reciprocity, Indigenous sovereignty, and community approval processes for dissemination (37,47,49,132,134,135,138,141). Finally, seven sources (37%) provided specific guidance on what should be reported when describing agreements in publications or protocols, including who co-developed the agreement, when it was created, what domains it covered (e.g., governance, authorship, data), and how it was maintained or revised (47,49,130,132,136,142,143). Rapid Scan 7: Research Partnership Collaborative Product Ownership Scan Three sources described ownership arrangements as formalized mechanisms to promote equity, transparency, and accountability within research partnerships (47,81,132). Across studies, ownership was conceptualized as a negotiated process that defined who controlled, accessed, and benefited from research products, including data, analyses, and dissemination outputs (47,81,132). All three sources emphasized that ownership should be explicitly defined within written agreements and grounded in shared decision-making between academic and community partners (47,81,132). Mohammed et al (47) described ownership as an ongoing process of negotiation, highlighting how differing interpretations between university and tribal partners led to the development of joint data-storage procedures that balanced academic accessibility with tribal sovereignty. This paper reported that data were stored in both locations, within the community and at the university, to ensure analytical feasibility while preserving community control (47). Funnell et al (132) reported that their partnership formalized co-ownership of all research products, including manuscripts and presentations, interpreting ownership as encompassing all processes, methods, results, and products of the collaboration. Salsberg et al (81) similarly described explicit agreements specifying ownership, interpretation, and data-sharing procedures, recommending that these agreements include provisions for joint interpretation, a “no veto” rule for publications, and transfer of data control to community partners following project completion. They argued that ownership must embed both procedural fairness and enduring community benefit, framing data stewardship as a continuing relational responsibility rather than a finite research output (81). Discussion This series of rapid environmental scans synthesized seven domains of research partnership practices: reporting, communication, training and education, conflict management, co-authorship, agreements, and ownership. While the scans were not originally categorized by relational or structural features, we observed that reported practices tended to emphasize either relational processes (e.g., communication, trust-building) or structural mechanisms (e.g., agreements, governance frameworks) across domains. We use this distinction as a conceptual lens to interpret and integrate findings (6,14,144,145). Relational practices, including role clarification, shared decision-making, and structured communication, were frequently described as the foundation of effective collaboration (146,147,147). These practices were reported as essential for fostering trust, mutual respect, and shared purpose, but were rarely positioned as sufficient without complementary structural supports (6,144,146,148). At the same time, multiple sources cautioned that relational work is rarely sufficient on its own without complementary structures, and that it requires intentional time and resourcing that are often undervalued in academic systems (6,14,144,146). Structural mechanisms, such as partnership agreements, authorship frameworks, and ownership provisions, were consistently presented as tools to support clear communication, shared accountability, and equitable governance (6,47,132,136,137). Agreements most often specified partner roles and responsibilities, decision-making processes, conflict-resolution and termination procedures, and stewardship of data and materials; they were described as most useful when co-developed early, tailored to context, and periodically reviewed and revised (47,49,130,133,136,137,139,141,143). Authorship and ownership were likewise framed as negotiated processes that define contributions, dissemination expectations, and control over data and products (47,122–124,126,128,132). Several papers provided explicit reporting recommendations for transparency, for example, documenting who co-developed agreements, when they were created, domains covered (governance, authorship, data), and how procedures were maintained or revised over time (49,113,130,133). Across both relational and structural domains, the literature converged on the value of clear governance : making decision processes explicit, clarifying how contributions are recognized (including authorship and acknowledgements), and specifying shared accountability (37,47,49,130,132–134,136–143). Many sources linked these governance arrangements to broader commitments to equity and self-determination, particularly in Indigenous and community-based contexts, emphasizing principles such as reciprocity, shared authority, and community approval for dissemination (6,12,91,149–151). Implications Findings from this synthesis indicate that technical tools such as memoranda of understanding, authorship agreements, or conflict procedures are insufficient on their own to sustain meaningful collaboration (6,144,146,148). Reported practices emphasized the need for deliberate attention to both relational and structural dimensions of partnership work (6,145,152). Together, these relational processes and structural mechanisms function as implementation strategies because they shape how evidence is co-produced, how decisions are made, how roles are defined, and how partners are engaged across the research and implementation lifecycle (153) . They also align with well-established determinants of implementation, including communication quality, trust, role clarity, governance structures, and relevant contextual factors (154,155) . Several sources highlighted the importance of making relational work intentional and scheduled, for example, by allocating time for ongoing check-ins, co-setting agendas, and periodically reviewing roles (6,148). Treating these as intentional components of project design, rather than informal activities, was described as a way to reduce role ambiguity and communication challenges (6,148).Structural tools such as agreements and authorship frameworks were most often described as useful when treated as living documents, co-created, context-specific, and revisited throughout the duration of a partnership (6,49,132,146,151). Embedding processes for reflection and revision within these tools was reported to enhance accountability while maintaining flexibility (6,146,151). Attention to context and power was also identified as essential when selecting and adapting partnership practices (6,12,91,150). Several sources situated partnership decisions within broader histories of extractive research, organizational hierarchies, and researcher positionality (14,145,151). Within these contexts, culturally grounded governance mechanisms, such as community-led approval processes or shared data stewardship, were described as strategies to promote equity and accountability (14,145,151). Finally, sustaining equitable partnerships was described as requiring institutional as well as partnership-level support (6,91). Policies, recognition structures, and funding mechanisms that normalize relational and structural partnership practices were identified as key to long-term sustainability (6,14,150). Overall, this synthesis provides a descriptive foundation for such system-level efforts by consolidating documented strategies that can be adapted to strengthen transparency, shared accountability, and equity in partnership processes. Future Directions Future research should extend this work by examining how relational and structural practices interact within and across different contexts, rather than assuming their effectiveness. Studies could explore which combinations of practices are associated with specific partnership processes or outcomes, for whom, and under what conditions (6,144). Future work could also focus on co-developing and testing operational resources that translate the IKT Guiding Principles and other partnership principles into applied partnership tools and align with existing equity assessment frameworks (14,49,145). Research examining how institutional policies, internal funding mechanisms, and recognition systems influence the uptake and sustainability of partnership practices would clarify the structural enablers and constraints that shape long-term collaboration (6,91). Additional attention could be directed toward governance arrangements, such as co-chairing, rotating facilitation, or community-led agreements, and how these operate across diverse contexts, including Indigenous and disability research environments (12,47,132,149–151). Finally, comparative work assessing the transferability and adaptability of reported practices across research domains, including spinal cord injury and other health domains, would help clarify their adaptability and general applicability (24,156). Strengths and Limitations This study’s strength lies in its systematic and transparent approach to identifying and synthesizing reported partnership practices across seven domains of collaboration. Following established guidance for rapid environmental scans, the process balanced methodological rigour and timeliness through structured screening, dual verification, and a registered protocol. Partner input throughout the process ensured that the scan topics and outputs reflected needs for practical, descriptive evidence on research-partnership processes. The inclusion of both academic and grey literature expanded the scope beyond peer-reviewed studies, capturing applied examples and tools often excluded from systematic reviews. Several limitations must be noted. The rapid scan design prioritized efficiency over exhaustive coverage, and therefore some relevant studies or grey literature may not have been captured. Only English-language sources were included, limiting cultural and linguistic diversity. The synthesis is descriptive, summarizing reported practices without assessing their quality, effectiveness, or contextual appropriateness. As most included studies originated in high-income, health-related, or academic-led contexts, findings may not reflect partnership approaches in other settings, particularly low- and middle-income or community-led systems. Furthermore, because the data were drawn from published reports, underlying relational dynamics and informal practices may be underrepresented. Overall, these findings should be interpreted as a foundational map of documented partnership practices and relational-structural strategies, rather than as evaluative evidence of their effectiveness. Future studies are needed to examine how these practices function and interact across diverse contexts and institutional environments. Conclusion These rapid environmental scans describe how research teams and partners have approached seven domains of partnership practice. In our interpretation, reported activities can be understood as emphasizing relational processes or structural mechanisms of collaboration that together characterize how partnership work is organized in the literature. This synthesis offers a consolidated map of documented approaches that teams and institutions can adapt in alignment with the IKT Guiding Principles. Consistent with the scope of rapid scans, this work does not assess effectiveness; rather, it establishes a descriptive foundation for future evaluation and operationalization of partnership practices across diverse contexts, including spinal cord injury research. Ultimately, these findings serve as a practical starting point for developing, adapting, implementing, and testing partnership guidance that supports transparency, accountability, and equity in collaborative research, while recognizing that no single practice or framework is universally applicable. Declarations Funding Declaration: This work is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, no. 890-2022-0131. Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper. Consent to publish declara tion: Not applicable. Ethics Declaration: Not applicable. Availability of Data and Materials: The full datasets supporting conclusions of this article are available at Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/xvug3/overview?view_only=e079b7c57f0e4d29af2f8ac862c09f08. Author Contributions Statement: AS, EG, MS, FH, KS, JC, CM, RW, AK, GC, KP, VC, SS, IKT Guiding Principles Partnership, and HG all contributed to the conception and design of the work. AS, LF, PH, KB, ML, EG, MS, and CS all contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. AS wrote the main manuscript.All authors contributed to the revising of the manuscript and approved the submitted version. References Boland L, Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Building an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) evidence base: colloquium proceedings and research direction. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020 Dec;18(1):8. Gagliardi AR, Kothari A, Graham ID. Research agenda for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in healthcare: what we know and do not yet know. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Feb;71(2):105–6. 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. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2021 Apr;102(4):656–63. Jull J, Giles A, Graham ID. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implementation Sci. 2017 Dec;12(1):150. Plamondon K, Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Shahram S. 2.2 Equity, Power, and Transformative Research Coproduction. In: Research Co-Production in Healthcare [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2022 [cited 2025 Mar 14]. p. 34–53. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119757269.ch3 Wallerstein N, Giatti L, Bógus C, Akerman M, Jacobi P, de Toledo R, et al. Shared Participatory Research Principles and Methodologies: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil—45 Years after Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” Societies. 2017 Apr 13;7(2):6. 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. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2024 Feb 14;1–9. 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. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2023 July 22;ibad040. Anderson KD. Targeting Recovery: Priorities of the Spinal Cord-Injured Population. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2004 Oct;21(10):1371–83. Anderson KD. Equitable partnerships between scientists and persons living with spinal cord injury will strengthen research scope, quality, and outcomes. Current opinion in neurology. 2021;34(6):783–8. Smith B, Williams O, Bone L, Collective the MSWC production. Co-production: A resource to guide co-producing research in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2022 Mar 19;1–29. Crosschild C, Huynh N, De Sousa I, Bawafaa E, Brown H. Where is critical analysis of power and positionality in knowledge translation? Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021 June 11;19(1):92. Fazal N, Jackson SF, Wong K, Yessis J, Jetha N. Between worst and best: developing criteria to identify promising practices in health promotion and disease prevention for the Canadian Best Practices Portal. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017 Nov;37(11):386–92. Plamondon KM, Brisbois B, Dubent L, Larson CP. Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis. Global Health. 2021 July 2;17(1):73. Bandola-Gill J, Arthur M, Leng RI. What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice. 2022 Mar 22; Oetzel JG, Boursaw B, Magarati M, Dickson E, Sanchez-Youngman S, Morales L, et al. Exploring theoretical mechanisms of community-engaged research: a multilevel cross-sectional national study of structural and relational practices in community-academic partnerships. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2022 May 2;21(1):59. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine. 2015 Sept 16;13(1):224. Tricco AC, Garritty CM, Boulos L, Lockwood C, Wilson M, McGowan J, et al. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;126:177–83. Charlton P, Doucet S, Azar R, Nagel DA, Boulos L, Luke A, et al. The use of the environmental scan in health services delivery research: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019 Sept 1;9(9):e029805. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews. 2012 Feb 10;1(1):10. Dobbins M. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. 2017 [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Rapid Review Guidebook. Available from: https://www.nccmt.ca/tools/rapid-review-guidebook Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. 2024 Feb 6;e076335. Team Members - IKT Guiding Principles [Internet]. [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Available from: https://ikt.ok.ubc.ca/our-team/team-members/ Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020 Dec;18(1):51. Mrklas KJ, Boyd JM, Shergill S, Merali S, Khan M, Nowell L, et al. Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2023 Jan 5;21(1):3. Shi Z, Shwed A, Graham I, Scarrow G, Athanasopoulos P, Noonan V, et al. Research funders in spinal cord injury research and their approaches to research partnerships: An environmental scan. submitted. Fox G, Fergusson DA, Sadeknury A, Nicholls SG, Smith M, Stacey D, et al. What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines. Health Expect. 2024 Jan 18;27(1):e13970. Mallidou AA, Atherton P, Chan L, Frisch N, Glegg S, Scarrow G. Core knowledge translation competencies: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec;18(1):502. Yeung E, Scodras S, Salbach NM, Kothari A, Graham ID. Identifying competencies for integrated knowledge translation: a Delphi study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Dec;21(1):1181. Schiavenato M, Chu F. PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Education in Practice. 2021 Oct;56:103194. Covidence [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Covidence - Better systematic review management. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/ Mandalios J. RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science. 2013 Aug;39(4):470–8. Sye D, Thompson D. Tools, Tests, and Checklists: The Evolution and Future of Source Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of New Librarianship. 2023 Mar 8;8(1):76–100. Braun KL, Tsark JU, Santos L, Aitaoto N, Chong C. Building Native Hawaiian capacity in cancer research and programming. A legacy of ’Imi Hale. Cancer. 2006;107(8 Suppl):2082–90. Cassidy CE, Shin HD, Ramage E, Conway A, Mrklas K, Laur C, et al. Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021 Nov 2;19(1):135. Chamberlain C, Gee G, Brown SJ, Atkinson J, Herrman H, Gartland D, et al. Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future-co-designing perinatal strategies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents experiencing complex trauma: framework and protocol for a community-based participatory action research study. BMJ open. 2019;9(6):e028397. Chung‐Do JJ, Ho‐Lastimosa I, Keaulana S, Ho KJr, Hwang PW, Radovich T, et al. Waimānalo Pono Research Hui: A community–academic partnership to promote native Hawaiian wellness through culturally grounded and community‐driven research and programming. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2019;64(1–2):107–17. Delisle T. Cardiovascular disease prevention in firefighters [Internet]. ProQuest Information & Learning; 2015. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=2015-99210-027&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5672194 Dobransky-Fasiska D, Brown C, Pincus HA, Nowalk MP, Wieland M, Parker LS, et al. Developing a community-academic partnership to improve recognition and treatment of depression in underserved African American and White elders. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2009;17(11):953–64. Finnegan V. Community-based research: A mixed methods study of the influence of community educators’ efficacy beliefs, program attitudes, and fidelity intention on practice [Internet]. ProQuest Information & Learning; 2023. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=2023-68882-236&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5672194 Fisher CM. Assessing sexual health information & resource provision in Indiana youth-serving community-based organizations utilizing community-based participatory research methods [Internet]. ProQuest Information & Learning; 2010. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=2010-99080-044&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5672194 Gleason-Comstock J, Streater A, Calhoun CB, Simpson HL, Rolack R, Norman SJr. Development of a Community-Based Participatory Research Effort to Evaluate Conventional HIV Testing (CHT) and HIV Rapid Testing (HRT). Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services. 2006;5(3–4):201–19. Hernandez ND, Dorsey J, Glass DM, Pope E, Worthy N, Blasingame E, et al. Community-Engaged Approaches to Address the Ethical Concerns of Maternal Mental Health Disparities Research. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved. 2019;30(4S):12–20. Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Sibley KM, Nguyen T, Vis-Dunbar M, Neilson CJ, et al. A review protocol on research partnerships: a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach. Systematic reviews. 2018;7(1):217. Kyoon-Achan G, Lavoie J, Kinew KA, Phillips-Beck W, Ibrahim N, Sinclair S, et al. Innovating for transformation in first nations health using community-based participatory research. Qualitative Health Research. 2018;28(7):1036–49. Long KA, Goldish M, Lown EA, Ostrowski NL, Alderfer MA, Marsland AL, et al. Major lessons learned from a nationally-based community–academic partnership: Addressing sibling adjustment to childhood cancer. Families, Systems, & Health. 2015;33(1):61–7. Mohammed SA, Walters KL, LaMarr J, Evans‐Campbell T, Fryberg S. Finding middle ground: Negotiating university and tribal community interests in community‐based participatory research. Nursing Inquiry. 2012;19(2):116–27. Nieweglowski K, Sheehan L, Deshpande A. A systematic review of community-based participatory research studies involving individuals with mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal [Internet]. 2023; Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=2024-22009-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5672194ORCID: [email protected] Parry D, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Fcpc C. Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research. 2015; Pozniak K, Cross A, Babic R, Cavalieros V, Martens R, Rosenbaum P, et al. Co‐development of the ENVISAGE‐families programme for parents of children with disabilities: Reflections on a parent–researcher partnership. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2022;69(6):653–61. Purvis RS, Long CR, James LP, Kimminau K, Riklon S, Carleton A, et al. Dissemination Protocol for Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships with Marshallese Pacific Islanders in Arkansas. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2021;15(3):369–83. Ramage ER, Burke M, Galloway M, Graham ID, Janssen H, Marsden DL, et al. Fit for purpose. Co-production of complex behavioural interventions. A practical guide and exemplar of co-producing a telehealth-delivered exercise intervention for people with stroke. Health research policy and systems. 2022;20(1):2. Sprague Martinez L, Rapkin BD, Young A, Freisthler B, Glasgow L, Hunt T, et al. Community engagement to implement evidence-based practices in the HEALing Communities Study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence [Internet]. 2020;217. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=2020-93633-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5672194ORCID: [email protected] Symanski E, An Han H, Hopkins L, Smith MA, McCurdy S, Han I, et al. Metal air pollution partnership solutions: building an academic-government-community-industry collaboration to improve air quality and health in environmental justice communities in Houston. Environmental health : a global access science source. 2020;19(1):39. Viglione C, Boynton-Jarrett R. The GROWBABY Research Network: A framework for advancing health equity through community engaged practice-based research. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2023;27(2):210–7. Wu AW, Hwang S, Weston CM, Ibe C, Boonyasai RT, Bone L, et al. Baltimore CONNECT: A Randomized Trial to Build Partnership Between Community Organizations and a Local Health System. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2018;12(3):297–306. Yang J, Park B. A scoping review key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research. PloS one. 2023;18(1):e0279563. Zoellner J, Hill JL, Brock D, Barlow ML, Alexander R, Brito F, et al. One-year mixed-methods case study of a community–academic advisory board addressing childhood obesity. Health Promotion Practice. 2017;18(6):833–53. Baik ES, Koshy A, Hardy BW. Communicating CRISPR: Challenges and opportunities in engaging the public. Progress in molecular biology and translational science. 2022;188(1):171–93. Barn P, Rideout KL, Lo W, Josey D, Vint Z, Sha C, et al. Better Together: Launching and Nurturing a Community Stakeholder Committee to Enhance Care and Research for Asthma and COPD. Chest. 2022;161(2):382–8. Burhansstipanov L, Christopher S, Schumacher SA. Lessons learned from community-based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 2005;12 Suppl 2(dlg, 9438457):70–6. Casola AR, Medley L, Kunes BC, McGlone N. Using Our Strengths: Establishing a Community-Academic Partnership to Tackle Menstrual Health Concerns in Philadelphia. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2023;17(1):79–86. Cro S, Kahan BC, Patel A, Henley A, C J, Hellyer P, et al. Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool. Trials. 2023;24(1):443. Davis MI, Olson BD, Jason LA, Alvarez J, Ferrari JR. Cultivating and maintaining effective action research partnerships: the DePaul and Oxford House collaborative. Journal of prevention & intervention in the community. 2006;31(1–2):3–12. Goold S, Rowe Z, Calhoun K, Campbell T, Danis M, Hammad A, et al. The State as Community in Community-Based Participatory Research. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2016;10(4):515–22. Hawke LD, Relihan J, Miller J, McCann E, Rong J, Darnay K, et al. Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution: Practical recommendations for researchers. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2018;21(6):944–9. Jeyakumaran T, Eggiman-Ketter J, Spadzinski A, Wolfe DL. Identifying strategies and related principles supporting a co-design approach in an assistive device service delivery and research platform. Front Rehabil Sci. 2024 July 23;5:1364016. Johnson S, Cardona D, Gramling B, Hamilton C, Hoffmann R, Sabir J. Engaging the for-profit sector in community-based participatory research: lessons from the ground. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2014;8(4):523–30. Joosten YA, Israel TL, Williams NA, Boone LR, Schlundt DG, Mouton CP, et al. Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2015;90(12):1646–50. Kalbarczyk A, Rao A, Mahendradhata Y, Majumdar P, Decker E, Anwar HB, et al. Evaluating the process of partnership and research in global health: reflections from the STRIPE project. BMC public health. 2020;20(Suppl 2):1058. Kothari EA, Mccutcheon C, Boland L, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK NO. 2 | 2020. 2020; Lee RE, Soltero EG, Mama SK, Saavedra F, Ledoux TA, McNeill L. Developing a transcultural academic-community partnership to arrest obesity. International quarterly of community health education. 2013;34(3):215–33. Lowes L, Robling MR, Bennert K, Crawley C, Hambly H, Hawthorne K, et al. Involving lay and professional stakeholders in the development of a research intervention for the DEPICTED study. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2011;14(3):250–60. Mccutcheon EC, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK NO. 1. 2019; Mccutcheon EC, Reszel J, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK NO. 4. 2021; Mccutcheon EC, Reszel J, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK V5. 2022; Norris KC, Brusuelas R, Jones L, Miranda J, Duru OK, Mangione CM. Partnering with community-based organizations: an academic institution’s evolving perspective. Ethnicity & disease. 2007;17(1 Suppl 1):S27-32. Pierce LL. Rehabilitation nurses working as collaborative research teams. Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses. 2005;30(4):132–9. Pinto RM, da Silva SB, Penido C, Spector AY. International Participatory Research Framework: triangulating procedures to build health research capacity in Brazil. Health promotion international. 2012;27(4):435–44. Reszel EJ, Mccutcheon C, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK. 2022; Salsberg J, Parry D, Pluye P, Macridis S, Herbert CP, Macaulay AC. Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: a critical review. J Environ Public Health. 2015;2015:191856. Samuel CA, Lightfoot AF, Schaal J, Yongue C, Black K, Ellis K, et al. Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2018;12(1):89–99. Suarez-Balcazar Y, Hammel J, Mayo L, Inwald S, Sen S. Innovation in global collaborations: from student placement to mutually beneficial exchanges. Occupational therapy international. 2013;20(2):97–104. Tariq S, Grewal EK, Booth R, Nat B, Ka-Caleni T, Larsen M, et al. Lessons learned from a virtual Community-Based Participatory Research project: prioritizing needs of people who have diabetes and experiences of homelessness to co-design a participatory action project. Research involvement and engagement. 2023;9(1):46. Valaitis RF, McEachern LW, Harris S, Dick T, Yovanovich J, Yessis J, et al. Annual gatherings as an integrated knowledge translation strategy to support local and traditional food systems within and across Indigenous community contexts: a qualitative study. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme. 2022;47(11):1051–61. Varshney D, Atkins S, Das A, Diwan V. Understanding collaboration in a multi-national research capacity-building partnership: a qualitative study. Health research policy and systems. 2016;14(1):64. Williamson HJ, Chief C, Jimenez D, Begay A, Milner TF, Sullivan S, et al. Voices of Community Partners: Perspectives Gained from Conversations of Community-Based Participatory Research Experiences. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17(14). Xia Y, Huang H, Yu Q, Halili X, Chen Q. Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing education: A theory-guided scoping review. Nurse education in practice. 2023;73(101090848):103839. Battaglia TA, Megrath K, Spencer N, Pamphile J, Crossno C, Maschke A, et al. Communicating to Engage: An Improvisational Theater-Based Communication Training Designed to Support Community-Academic Partnership Development. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2021;96(11):1564–8. Burke JG, Hess S, Hoffmann K, Guizzetti L, Loy E, Gielen A, et al. Translating community-based participatory research principles into practice. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2013;7(2):115–22. Chen RC, Krebill H, Kennedy T, Douglas S, Neufeld KL, Welch DR, et al. A community engagement training program for basic and translational cancer researchers. Cancer causes & control : CCC. 2023;34(12):1123–32. Coombe CM, Schulz AJ, Brakefield-Caldwell W, Gray C, Guzman JR, Kieffer EC, et al. Applying Experiential Action Learning Pedagogy to an Intensive Course to Enhance Capacity to Conduct Community-Based Participatory Research. Pedagogy in health promotion. 2020;6(3):168–82. Jernigan VBB, Jacob T, Styne D. The adaptation and implementation of a community-based participatory research curriculum to build tribal research capacity. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(Suppl 3):S424–32. Jimenez-Chavez JC, Rosario-Maldonado FJ, Torres JA, Ramos-Lucca A, Castro-Figueroa EM, Santiago L. Assessing Acceptability, Feasibility, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Community-Based Participatory Research Curriculum for Community Members: A Contribution to the Development of a Community-Academia Research Partnership. Health equity. 2018;2(1):272–81. Laborde DJ, Brannock K, Breland-Noble A, Parrish T. Pilot test of cooperative learning format for training mental health researchers and black community leaders in partnership skills. Journal of the National Medical Association. 2007;99(12):1359–68. Lee BK, Gilbert R, Knighton R. Couple therapy in substance use and gambling disorders: Promoting health system change. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal. 2020;42(3):228–39. Masuda JR, Creighton G, Nixon S, Frankish J. Building capacity for community-based participatory research for health disparities in Canada: the case of “Partnerships in Community Health Research”. Health promotion practice. 2011;12(2):280–92. Meurer LN, DeNomie M, Morzinski JA, Nelson DA, Meurer JR, Chandler TE, et al. Incorporating Community Engagement in Primary Care Research Training: Eleven-Year Outcomes. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2020;14(1):63–74. Morgan J, Neufeld SD, Holroyd H, Ruiz J, Taylor T, Nolan S, et al. Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET): developing accessible and relevant research ethics training for community-based participatory research with people with lived and living experience using illicit drugs and harm reduction workers. Harm reduction journal. 2023;20(1):86. Nguyen-Truong CKY, Fritz RL, Lee J, Lau C, Le C, Kim J, et al. Interactive CO-learning for Research Engagement and Education (I-COREE) Curriculum to Build Capacity Between Community Partners and Academic Researchers. Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal. 2018;3(4):126–38. Plumb M, Poole SF, Sarantis H, Braun S, Cordeiro J, Van Olphen J, et al. Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019;16(22). Rubin CL, Martinez LS, Chu J, Hacker K, Brugge D, Pirie A, et al. Community-engaged pedagogy: a strengths-based approach to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2012;6(4):481–90. Smikowski J, Dewane S, Johnson ME, Brems C, Bruss C, Roberts LW. Community-based participatory research for improved mental health. Ethics & Behavior. 2009;19(6):461–78. Tait H, Williamson A. A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health research policy and systems. 2019;17(1):98. Yigletu S, Kosinski KC, Kuah A, Alfaro K, Holmes AC, Tendulkar SA. “Collaboration Toward One Collective Goal”: A Mixed-Methods Study of Short-Term Learning Outcomes and Long-Term Impacts Among Students Participating in an Undergraduate Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Course. Frontiers in public health. 2021;9(101616579):694840. Zittleman L, Wright L, Ortiz BC, Fleming C, Loudhawk-Hedgepeth C, Marshall J, et al. Colorado Immersion Training in Community Engagement: Because You Can’t Study What You Don’t Know. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2014;8(1):117–24. Freeman ER, Brugge D, Bennett-Bradley WM, Levy JI, Carrasco ER. Challenges of conducting community-based participatory research in Boston’s neighborhoods to reduce disparities in asthma. Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2006;83(6):1013–21. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared?. Circulation. 2009;119(19):2633–42. Downs TJ, Ross L, Mucciarone D, Calvache MC, Taylor O, Goble R. Participatory testing and reporting in an environmental-justice community of Worcester, Massachusetts: a pilot project. Environmental health : a global access science source. 2010;9(101147645):34. Maskell J, Newcombe P, Martin G, Kimble R. Conducting a paediatric multi-centre RCT with an industry partner: challenges and lessons learned. Journal of paediatrics and child health. 2012;48(11):974–7. Allen ML, Svetaz AV, Hurtado GA, Linares R, Garcia-Huidobro D, Hurtado M. The developmental stages of a community-university partnership: the experience of Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2013;7(3):271–9. Henderson S, Kendall E, Forday P, Cowan D. Partnership functioning: a case in point between government, nongovernment, and a university in Australia. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2013;7(4):385–93. Calderon JL, Norris KC, Hardigan PC, Calderon LA, Hays RD. Case Study of an Unsustainable Community-Academic Partnership: Toward Core Standards for the Structure of Emerging Participatory Research. Ethnicity & disease. 2015;25(3):363–72. Mayan M, Lo S, Richter S, Dastjerdi M, Drummond J. Community-Based Participatory Research: Ameliorating Conflict When Community and Research Practices Meet. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2016;10(2):259–64. Gaffy E, Brijnath B, Dow B. Co-producing research with people impacted by dementia and service providers: issues and challenges. Public health research & practice. 2022;32(2). Vikre EK. Engaging communities in obesity prevention: A case study of partnership dynamics and participant experience in community based participatory research [Internet]. ProQuest Information & Learning; 2015. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=2015-99060-284&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s5672194 Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co‐creation in community‐based health services: Literature review and case study. Milbank Quarterly. 2016;94(2):392–429. Ayoub CC, Geary E, Londhe R, Hiratsuka V, Roberts E. Building evaluation partnerships with tribal communities for home visiting. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2018;39(3):295–302. 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 Research Policy and Systems. 2020 Mar 30;18(1):35. Kothari A. Integrated Knowledge Translation Case Notes [Internet]. Western University; 2020. Available from: https://www.uwo.ca/fhs/kt/research_projects/2020-HS-9623-Case-Notes.pdf Bharadwaj L. A framework for building research partnerships with first nations communities. Environmental health insights. 2014;8(101488505):15–25. Bordeaux BC, Wiley C, Tandon SD, Horowitz CR, Brown PB, Bass EB. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2007;1(3):281–8. Castleden H, Morgan VS, Neimanis A. Researchers’ perspectives on collective/community co-authorship in community-based participatory indigenous research. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE. 2010;5(4):23–32. Chavez V, Israel B, Allen AJ 3rd, DeCarlo MF, Lichtenstein R, Schulz A, et al. A Bridge Between Communities: Video-making using principles of community-based participatory research. Health promotion practice. 2004;5(4):395–403. Flicker S, Nixon SA. Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams: considerations for novice scholars conducting community-engaged research. Health promotion international. 2018;33(1):152–61. Hess CW, Bruckner C, Kaiser T, Mauron A, Wahli W, Wenzel UJ, et al. Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations. Swiss medical weekly. 2015;145(d10, 100970884):w14108. Novak-Pavlic M, Gorter JW, Phoenix MP, Micsinszki SK, Pozniak K, Li L, et al. Patients and Families as Partners in Patient-Oriented Research: How Should They Be Compensated?. Journal of patient-centered research and reviews. 2023;10(2):82–90. Resnik DB, Kennedy CE. Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research. Accountability in research. 2010;17(4):198–210. Washburn JJ. Encouraging research collaboration through ethical and fair authorship: A model policy. Ethics & Behavior. 2008;18(1):44–58. Begun AL, Berger LK, Otto-Salaj LL, Rose SJ. Developing effective social work university-community research collaborations. Social Work. 2010;55(1):54–62. DeLuca AN, Regenberg A, Sugarman J, Murdoch DR, Levine O. Bioethical considerations in developing a biorepository for the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health project. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2012;54 Suppl 2(a4j, 9203213):S172-9. Funnell S, Tanuseputro P, Letendre A, Bearskin LB, Walker J. “Nothing about us, without us” How community-based participatory research methods were adapted in an indigenous end-of-life study using previously collected data’: Erratum. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2020;39(2):330–330. Harding A, Harper B, Stone D, O’Neill C, Berger P, Harris S, et al. Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environmental health perspectives. 2012;120(1):6–10. Heaney CD, Wilson SM, Wilson OR. The West End Revitalization Association’s community-owned and -managed research model: development, implementation, and action. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2007;1(4):339–49. Henderson TL, Shigeto A, Ponzetti JJJr, Edwards AB, Stanley J, Story C. A cultural‐variant approach to community‐based participatory research: New ideas for family professionals. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 2017;66(4):629–43. Hunter J, Lounsbury D, Rapkin B, Remien R. A Practical Framework for Navigating Ethical Challenges in Collaborative Community Research. Global journal of community psychology practice. 2011;1(3):12–22. Pivik JR, Goelman H. Evaluation of a community-based participatory research consortium from the perspective of academics and community service providers focused on child health and well-being. Health Education & Behavior. 2011;38(3):271–81. Quigley D. A Review of Improved Ethical Practices in Environmental and Public Health Research: Case Examples from Native Communities. Health Education & Behavior. 2006;33(2):130–47. Ross LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, Smith GRJr, et al. The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2010;5(1):19–32. Steens R, Van Regenmortel T, Hermans K. Beyond the research–practice gap: The development of an academic collaborative centre for child and family social work. British Journal of Social Work. 2018;48(6):1611–26. Tan EJ, McGill S, Tanner EK, Carlson MC, Rebok GW, Seeman TE, et al. The evolution of an academic–community partnership in the design, implementation, and evaluation of Experience Corps® Baltimore City: A courtship model. The Gerontologist. 2014;54(2):314–21. Uneke CJ, Ezeoha AE, Uro-Chukwu HC, Ezeonu CT, Igboji J. Promoting Researchers and Policy-Makers Collaboration in Evidence-Informed Policy-Making in Nigeria: Outcome of a Two-Way Secondment Model between University and Health Ministry. International journal of health policy and management. 2018;7(6):522–31. Yonge O, Skillen DL, Henderson D. Collaborative research by graduate students. Image--the journal of nursing scholarship. 1996;28(4):365–7. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice: A Realist Review for Health Research and Practice. Milbank Quarterly. 2012 June;90(2):311–46. Larson CP, Plamondon KM, Dubent L, Bicaba F, Bicaba A, Minh TH, et al. The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022 Apr 28;10(2):e2100316. Oetzel JG, Zhou C, Duran B, Pearson C, Magarati M, Lucero J, et al. Establishing the Psychometric Properties of Constructs in a Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model. Am J Health Promot. 2015 May;29(5):e188–202. Lucero J, Wallerstein N, Duran B, Alegria M, Greene-Moton E, Israel B, et al. Development of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Process and Outcomes of Community-Based Participatory Research. J Mix Methods Res. 2018 Jan;12(1):55–74. Plamondon K, Banner D, Cary MA, Faulkner M, Gainforth H, Ghag K, et al. Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study. Health Expect. 2023 Sept 25;27(1):e13865. Smylie J, Olding M, Ziegler C. Sharing What We Know about Living a Good Life: Indigenous Approaches to Knowledge Translation. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2014;35:16–23. Egid BR, Roura M, Aktar B, Amegee Quach J, Chumo I, Dias S, et al. “You want to deal with power while riding on power”: global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Nov;6(11):e006978. Christopher S, Saha R, Lachapelle P, Jennings D, Colclough Y, Cooper C, et al. Applying indigenous community-based participatory research principles to partnership development in health disparities research. Fam Community Health. 2011;34(3):246–55. Plamondon KM. Reimagining Researchers in Health Research Comment on" Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada: A Call to ‘Re-Imagine’Research". International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2021;10(2):86. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Sci. 2015 Dec;10(1):21. Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022 Oct 29;17(1):75. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10(1):53. Munthe-Kaas H, Nøkleby H, Lewin S, Glenton C. The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020 Jan 17;20(1):11. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files GRIPP2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 03 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 07 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 04 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 03 Feb, 2026 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-8713739","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":587601970,"identity":"589f3c99-a396-4b49-96c7-cdab25eba7c4","order_by":0,"name":"Alanna Shwed","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alanna","middleName":"","lastName":"Shwed","suffix":""},{"id":587601971,"identity":"ba36fe13-2cb0-4437-a6db-9d4a96f4ff10","order_by":1,"name":"Lauren Finlay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lauren","middleName":"","lastName":"Finlay","suffix":""},{"id":587601972,"identity":"f3ad00ca-96ae-401d-abf6-cf8084090eee","order_by":2,"name":"Parres Holliday","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Parres","middleName":"","lastName":"Holliday","suffix":""},{"id":587601973,"identity":"e0614ce1-38ec-46b4-a069-34d365bfaf99","order_by":3,"name":"Khushi Brar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Khushi","middleName":"","lastName":"Brar","suffix":""},{"id":587601974,"identity":"075a57b0-0ecb-40a6-81ea-0f2e373ed5e5","order_by":4,"name":"Megan Lambrecht","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Megan","middleName":"","lastName":"Lambrecht","suffix":""},{"id":587601975,"identity":"81fdc2c1-b18b-4ea1-b5b6-00a35b74a6d0","order_by":5,"name":"Emily Giroux","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emily","middleName":"","lastName":"Giroux","suffix":""},{"id":587601976,"identity":"5d491cfe-1446-45e0-b124-e3c3ac3ab60b","order_by":6,"name":"Maji Shaikh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maji","middleName":"","lastName":"Shaikh","suffix":""},{"id":587601977,"identity":"e45b00ad-d69f-4a48-a133-df62dbd62044","order_by":7,"name":"Christina Skinner","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christina","middleName":"","lastName":"Skinner","suffix":""},{"id":587601978,"identity":"07f19018-320e-42bc-acb5-527d490b5303","order_by":8,"name":"Femke Hoekstra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Femke","middleName":"","lastName":"Hoekstra","suffix":""},{"id":587601979,"identity":"128a99af-258f-46ec-8927-21f75e0ba150","order_by":9,"name":"Kathryn Sibley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Manitoba","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kathryn","middleName":"","lastName":"Sibley","suffix":""},{"id":587601980,"identity":"0936cccc-99cd-47c7-869e-c33153d2efc9","order_by":10,"name":"John Chernesky","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Praxis Spinal Cord Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"","lastName":"Chernesky","suffix":""},{"id":587601981,"identity":"2eac0ec0-d45d-4562-9533-390b6db0eb47","order_by":11,"name":"Christoper McBride","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Spinal Cord Injury BC","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christoper","middleName":"","lastName":"McBride","suffix":""},{"id":587601982,"identity":"d9851901-c80a-4d13-abee-dd00bde80197","order_by":12,"name":"Rhonda Willms","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Vancouver Coastal Health","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rhonda","middleName":"","lastName":"Willms","suffix":""},{"id":587601983,"identity":"3469fcdb-f6fc-4fcf-8134-fe1ca9d86020","order_by":13,"name":"Anita Kaiser","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Health Network","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anita","middleName":"","lastName":"Kaiser","suffix":""},{"id":587601984,"identity":"bb64f439-85a6-41df-95aa-32fc440f7e57","order_by":14,"name":"Genevieve Creighton","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Genevieve","middleName":"","lastName":"Creighton","suffix":""},{"id":587601985,"identity":"99e317e6-3652-4e3a-9d84-d4cb79627f2c","order_by":15,"name":"Katrina Plamondon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katrina","middleName":"","lastName":"Plamondon","suffix":""},{"id":587601986,"identity":"e3e775af-5c9c-4672-976e-4ef550549a2d","order_by":16,"name":"Victoria Claydon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Simon Fraser University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victoria","middleName":"","lastName":"Claydon","suffix":""},{"id":587601987,"identity":"330cff2c-a69e-4b35-9f2d-9a6e3e598833","order_by":17,"name":"Shane Sweet","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"McGill University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shane","middleName":"","lastName":"Sweet","suffix":""},{"id":587601988,"identity":"7b0e800d-cc55-4136-af63-da2865a5f6d5","order_by":18,"name":"IKT Guiding Principles Partnership","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"IKT","middleName":"Guiding Principles","lastName":"Partnership","suffix":""},{"id":587601989,"identity":"4754ed5c-9c67-47f9-9971-8835e2b72294","order_by":19,"name":"Heather Gainforth","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of British Columbia Okanagan","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Heather","middleName":"","lastName":"Gainforth","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-27 19:09:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8713739/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8713739/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102745391,"identity":"862d0351-9e4c-4503-8a57-c6c02fe94829","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 08:47:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1186662,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8713739/v1/cd6042cb-87bb-4f2a-8d8a-db0a8077f3cc.pdf"},{"id":102226277,"identity":"90c0f782-2f5a-4c1c-8c2a-660015089110","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-09 14:44:34","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":20806,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"GRIPP2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8713739/v1/db3eced69f2e8669cf02a0e6.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Identifying Practices for Meaningful Health Research Partnerships: Series of Rapid Environmental Scans","fulltext":[{"header":"Plain English Summary","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere is growing expectation that research be conducted in partnership with the people and communities it aims to benefit. Despite this, many research teams lack clear, practical guidance on how to carry out meaningful research partnerships in practice. This paper synthesizes findings from \u003cstrong\u003eseven rapid environmental scans\u003c/strong\u003e to identify concrete practices that research teams report using to support collaboration across a range of research settings. The scans extracted specific actions, processes, and structures that enable partnership to function in practice. These included clear governance and role definition, regular and transparent communication, shared decision-making, support for learning and capacity building, and explicit agreements around authorship and ownership. By bringing together evidence that is often scattered across disciplines and sources, this paper provides actionable insight to support research teams, institutions, and funders seeking to strengthen partnership-based approaches and advance the science and practice of collaborative research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch coproduction and partnerships are recognized as important components for advancing knowledge translation (KT) and ensuring that health research processes and outcomes are both meaningful and impactful (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Meaningful research partnerships are characterized by reciprocity, transparency, shared decision-making, and attention to power relations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). However, despite growing recognition of their importance, such partnerships remain challenging to establish and sustain. Structural inequities, power dynamics, and a lack of practical guidance often undermine intentions for equitable collaboration (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Previous research has identified recurring barriers, including misaligned expectations, insufficient conflict-resolution processes, and unclear institutional policies related to authorship and ownership (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, collaborative approaches that bring together researchers and research users continue to demonstrate potential to avoid tokenism, enhance relevance, and improve outcomes and impacts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the importance of attention to process, power, and relationships in research and implementation, many fields focused on improving outcomes and quality of life, such as spinal cord injury (SCI) research, have historically been dominated by biomedical, positivist approaches that overlook the processes of partnering (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). Further, insights from SCI research and the broader disability community, highlight that even when research has been conducted in partnership it is often critiqued as being tokenistic (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In response to these challenges, the Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Guiding Principles were developed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). These principles were co-developed by a multidisciplinary team of researchers, funders, clinicians, community-based organizations, and people living with and/or affected by SCI (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). These eight principles offer a values-based list for guiding meaningful partnership throughout the research process (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). While developed for the SCI context, they reflect broader values, such as respect, trust, and mutual benefit, that may resonate across partnered research fields.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the IKT Guiding Principles articulate \u003cem\u003ewhat\u003c/em\u003e meaningful partnership should embody, they remain largely aspirational and lack practical, actionable, and accessible guidance for implementation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Without specific strategies, teams report challenges putting the Principles into practice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). To address these gaps, the IKT Guiding Principles Partnership initiated a multi-phase program of work to strengthen the evidence base for meaningful engagement in research partnerships. Meaningful engagement is defined as contributing to and influencing a personal and socially meaningful research, dissemination, and/or implementation goal and feeling a sense of responsibility to others (e.g., the research team, organizations, people with lived experience of SCI, etc.) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). A central component of this work involves identifying specific partnership practices, defined broadly as interventions, programs or services, strategies, or procedures (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e), that can be integrated into future guidance and tools. This paper contributes to that effort by presenting a synthesis of reported practices across key aspects of partnership processes, offering a cross-sector map of what is currently being done. While situated within the IKT Guiding Principles program, the findings advance the broader science of research partnership by identifying transferable practices relevant across health and social research contexts. The objective of this study was to descriptively synthesize reported research partnership practices across seven domains: 1) reporting, 2) meeting and communication, 3) training, 4) conflict management, 5) co-authorship, 6) agreements, and 7) ownership. The overarching goal is to provide a foundational evidence base that can inform future development of actionable guidance aligned with the IKT Guiding Principles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite growing calls for evidence-informed approaches to research coproduction, limited syntheses exist of the concrete strategies that teams use, particularly those addressing both relational and structural dimensions in partnership work (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e). Rapid environmental scans offer a pragmatic way to capture this scattered evidence base, identify actionable practices, and generate insights that can guide implementation and evaluation (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR18\" citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). In doing so, this study addresses a key gap: the absence of synthesized, practice-oriented evidence to inform both interpersonal and structural aspects of partnership work (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe selected rapid environmental scans as a pragmatic synthesis method that balances rigour with feasibility, while capturing a large source of data in a timely manner (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike systematic reviews, which aim for exhaustive retrieval and appraisal of all relevant literature, rapid scans streamline screening and data extraction processes, prioritizing speed and relevance over comprehensiveness (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). This rapid scan approach meets partner-identified needs for timely, usable evidence to inform ongoing efforts to support implementation of the IKT Guiding Principles in research partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur approach was guided by the rapid review guidebook from the Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e) and supplemented by Cochrane rapid review principles (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) and the work of Tricco and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). There are five steps that guided this work: 1) Setting the research question: topic refinement; 2) Setting eligibility criteria; 3) Searching; 4) Study selection; and 5) Data extraction and appraisal. Our rapid environmental scan design enabled us to incorporate new information not previously identified in our initial scan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e), thus maintaining responsiveness to partner needs and new learnings (e.g., when partners came across new relevant information). Our approach aimed to identify, extract, and synthesize guidance and practices across key topics of research partnership processes. Further, aligned with our partnership\u0026rsquo;s values of accessibility and transparency, the protocol for this rapid environmental scan was co-developed and registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF) on December 3rd, 2023.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 1: Setting the Research Question: Topic Refinement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe development and refinement of research questions for this project were informed through a rigorous, evidence and partner-informed process that included consultation with the IKT Guiding Principles partnership (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e), alignment with the partnership RECIPE framework (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e), and previous research partnership agendas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Insights from prior work identifying barriers and facilitators to adopting the IKT Guiding Principles (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e) also informed this selection. The research team developed an initial list of potential scan topics based on prior work and literature gaps, which was then reviewed and discussed during an online meeting and then through consensus over email with the whole partnership. Through this partner and evidence-informed process, the scan topics (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) were refined to address specific challenges and practical needs for research partnerships, contributing to the foundation of practices that will inform research partnership guidance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRapid Scan Topics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRapid Scan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDate of Search\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedline (Ovid), PsychINFO\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDate of Search\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrey-Literature (Google)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 1: Reporting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 3rd, 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuly 31st, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 2: Communication and meeting\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 8th, 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAugust 2nd, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 3: Training and education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 8th, 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuly 29th, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 4: Conflict management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 8th, 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuly 31st, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 5: Co-authorship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarch 28th, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuly 31st, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 6: Partnership agreements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 3rd, 2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJuly 31st, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScan 7: Collaborative product ownership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 4th, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecember 10th, 2024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTopics such as partnership evaluation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e), dedicated partnership funding (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e), remuneration guidance (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e), and competencies required for IKT (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e) were identified as important; however, they were not included in the scans due to recent reviews on these topics (i.e., published since 2024). The practices identified through this work will contribute to a larger list of partnership practices endorsed by the IKT Guiding Principles Partnership team as strategies that can enact the IKT Guiding Principles in practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 2: Setting Eligibility Criteria\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEligibility criteria were informed by previous work that identified research partnership practices (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e) clarified with input from a library information speciality using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Studies from any field or topic area were considered for inclusion; no date restrictions were applied. To be eligible, studies needed to meet the definition of a research partnership as \u0026ldquo;individuals, groups, or organizations engaged in collaborative research activity involving at least one researcher (e.g., academic institution affiliate) and any research user (e.g., policymaker, healthcare administrator, community agency, charities, networks, or patients)\u0026rdquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e). We included both studies primarily focused on partnership processes (e.g., evaluations, frameworks, or implementation studies) and those where partnership practices were described in the context of broader research (e.g., methods sections, reflections). Editorials, commentaries, and protocols were excluded unless they provided actionable descriptions of partnership-related practices. As part of our rapid scan methodology, we limited inclusion to English-language, full-text sources and focused on two databases (MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO) to balance comprehensiveness with feasibility. For grey literature and additional sources, screening was limited to google, reference lists, and specific registries after primary abstract and full-text screening, allowing the identification of potentially missed studies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria for each scan can be found on OSF.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 3: Searching\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe search strategy for each scan was developed in collaboration with a librarian information specialist to ensure comprehensive coverage and conceptual clarity and can be found on OSF. Further, search terms were informed by previous scans and reviews related to research partnership (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e). A peer-reviewed search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid) and tested in collaboration with the librarian to balance sensitivity and scope. To capture scope efficiently and align it with rapid scan methods, the primary search for each scan focused on MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO, capturing health and psychology-based literature relevant to research partnerships. Search term clusters related to \"research partnership\" and \"partnered research\" were peer-reviewed by the academic librarian to ensure clarity across diverse partnership approaches. The search strategy restricted literature to English-language sources, as language was a criterion for inclusion and exclusion. Grey literature and supplemental searches were limited to targeted sources identified by partners and Google. Google was searched to capture relevant unpublished work, as grey literature often provides insights not available in peer-reviewed sources. Covidence software (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e) was used to identify and remove duplicates, both automatically and manually, ensuring a streamlined dataset for initial screening.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 4: Study Selection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study selection process employed a multi-stage screening approach to ensure consistency and reduce bias. Title and abstract screening began with two reviewers independently screening at least 20% of abstracts for each scan, resolving any conflicts through discussion. For the remaining abstracts, a single primary reviewer conducted the screening, while a secondary reviewer independently screened all excluded abstracts to verify accuracy and resolve any further conflicts. Full-text screening followed a similar dual-review model. Two reviewers independently screened at least 20% of full-text articles for each scan, again resolving conflicts through consensus. For the remaining full texts, a single reviewer conducted the primary screening of included studies, while a second reviewer screened all excluded full texts to confirm alignment with inclusion criteria and reduce the risk of bias. The first author (AS) was the primary reviewer for all scans and steps. Co-authors (LF, PH, KB, ML, EG, MS, CS) acted as the secondary reviewer for individual scans. This screening process ensured the inclusion of studies relevant to each scan topic while maintaining rigor and minimizing bias.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStep 5: Data Extraction and Appraisal\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData extraction and appraisal followed a structured, multi-step approach. A single reviewer initially extracted data relevant to the study\u0026rsquo;s aims, including detailed information about tools, contexts, and links to full resources. A second reviewer independently checked all extracted data for accuracy and completeness. Given the descriptive aim and rapid design, we conducted a source credibility and practical utility appraisal (RADAR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e) and CRAAP-informed (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e), with partnership-specific adaptations) to evaluate relevance, provenance/authority, clarity of presentation, purpose, and methodological description. We did not perform risk-of-bias assessment or effectiveness grading.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor each included source, we extracted any reported practices or guidance relevant to the scan topic. Extracted content included concrete actions (e.g., meeting practices, authorship protocols), descriptions of processes (e.g., decision-making, role negotiation), and contextual notes where applicable. Assessing effectiveness or outcomes was beyond the scope of this synthesis; our aim was to compile descriptive accounts of how partnership practices were reported and operationalized in the literature. While some strategies may be readily transferable, others represent general principles or context-dependent suggestions that require further development to become fully actionable. As such, the findings should be viewed as a foundational map of reported practices, rather than a definitive set of implementation-ready recommendations. The full lists of extracted strategies are available on OSF.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eEach scan produced a separate Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) figure. Some articles were relevant to multiple scan topics and were therefore included in more than one synthesis. Refer to OSF for all PRISMA figures and included sources by scan topic with indication of any overlapping citations across scans.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 1: Research Partnership Reporting Guidance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross 26 sources, authors identified practices and recommendations for reporting research partnerships in ways that enhance transparency, equity, and reproducibility\u0026nbsp;(24,34\u0026ndash;58). Fifteen sources (58%) emphasized reporting of partnership structure and context, including research setting, team composition, partner affiliations, funding sources, and partnership duration\u0026nbsp;(34,37,39,44\u0026ndash;47,49\u0026ndash;54,56,58). These\u0026nbsp;sources explained that contextual detail helps readers interpret outcomes and consider transferability across settings\u0026nbsp;(24,35,49). Governance and decision-making processes were highlighted in ten papers (39%)\u0026nbsp;(35,39,47\u0026ndash;49,52\u0026ndash;54,56,57),\u0026nbsp;which described leadership models, communication and decision pathways, authorship and credit processes, and data-sharing or conflict-resolution mechanisms.\u0026nbsp;Review sources noted that explicit governance reporting helps make power structures visible by clarifying who holds authority, how decisions are made, and how disagreements are resolved (24,35,49). Thirteen sources (50%) discussed or modeled reporting of partner roles and responsibilities\u0026nbsp;(37,39\u0026ndash;41,43,44,48,50\u0026ndash;52,54,56,58). Authors recommended describing who contributed at each stage of the research process (e.g., design, data collection, analysis, dissemination), how roles evolved, and how these were recognized\u0026nbsp;(24,35,48,50,51). This transparency in reporting was described\u0026nbsp;as critical for assessing the level and authenticity of participation\u0026nbsp;(24,35,49). Several sources (31%) described the reporting of partnership principles and values such as reciprocity, respect, co-learning, shared benefit, and Indigenous self-determination\u0026nbsp;(34,36,37,43,45,52\u0026ndash;54).\u0026nbsp;Others focused on \u003cstrong\u003edissemination and authorship practices\u003c/strong\u003e, describing how to specify who was involved in dissemination planning, the communication formats used (e.g., community briefings, media, infographics), and how partner preferences shaped these decisions\u0026nbsp;(35,41,45,48\u0026ndash;52,54,58). Seven sources (27%)\u0026nbsp;called for explicit \u003cstrong\u003ereflexivity and challenge reporting\u003c/strong\u003e, encouraging authors to document tensions, power imbalances, and lessons learned as legitimate findings\u0026nbsp;(39,42,45,47,52,54,58).\u0026nbsp;Finally, three review sources provided explicit \u003cstrong\u003ereporting recommendations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(24,35,49). Hoekstra et al\u0026nbsp;(24)\u0026nbsp;advised that publications describe partnership principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts; specify who was involved at each stage; and disclose contextual and relational factors influencing results. Parry et al\u0026nbsp;(49)\u0026nbsp;recommended including governance arrangements, meeting structures, decision-making processes, funding agreements, authorship and compensation policies, and dissemination plans.\u0026nbsp;Cassidy et al\u0026nbsp;(35)\u0026nbsp;emphasized reporting researcher and knowledge-user roles, engagement frequency, barriers and facilitators, and methods used to evaluate or reflect on partnership quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 2: Research Partnership Communication and Meeting Guidance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross 33 sources, communication and meeting practices were consistently identified as central to equitable, transparent, and sustainable partnerships (1,24,58\u0026ndash;88). Authors described communication as both a structural mechanism for coordination and a relational process that sustains trust, inclusion, and shared decision-making (24,64,65,87). Nineteen sources (58%) emphasized the need for structured and ongoing communication processes to keep all partners informed and engaged (1,58,60,67\u0026ndash;70,73\u0026ndash;81,84,86,88). Common recommendations included developing formal communication plans or charters that outlined meeting frequency, contact modes, response expectations, and documentation procedures (1,74,75,77,80). Several studies (24%) detailed how sharing agendas, minutes, and action summaries, as well as maintaining shared digital workspaces such as Teams or Slack, enhanced transparency and collective accountability (58,67,74\u0026ndash;76,78,80,81).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeeting facilitation and structure were identified in fourteen sources (42%) as critical to equitable participation (58,60,65,68,69,71,73,75\u0026ndash;77,80,84,85,88). Strategies included rotating or co-facilitating meetings, appointing neutral facilitators, dedicating time for reflection or debrief, and alternating times or venues to support accessibility (58,60,65,68,69,71,73,75\u0026ndash;77,80,84,85,88). Seventeen sources (52%) further emphasized the value of pre-meeting preparation (58,60,63,66\u0026ndash;71,73\u0026ndash;76,80,84\u0026ndash;86), such as sending materials in advance, clarifying decision authority, reviewing terminology, and flagging agenda items requiring consensus. Kothari et al (71) specifically recommended \u0026ldquo;pre-brief\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;de-brief\u0026rdquo; sessions to help partners with lived experience participate confidently. Post-meeting and between-meeting communication was also frequently discussed, with sixteen sources (49%) describing follow-up summaries, newsletters, and informal check-ins as mechanisms to maintain accountability and momentum (58,60,63,67,68,70,74\u0026ndash;78,80,81,84\u0026ndash;86). Documenting and sharing key decisions was viewed as a concrete way to sustain trust and reduce information asymmetry among partners (58,75,80).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwelve sources (36%) highlighted multiple communication formats, hybrid, teleconference, and shared online platforms, to support accessibility and inclusion (58,60,63,65,67\u0026ndash;69,75,76,80,84,86). Communication modes were often co-selected and revisited to accommodate technological comfort and geography (58,60,63,65,67\u0026ndash;69,75,76,80,84,86). Eleven papers (33%) described tailoring communication to partner context and accessibility, through translation, plain-language materials, cultural protocols, and equitable voice for partners with less institutional power (59,62,63,65,66,69,76,77,79,80,85). Indigenous and community-based projects emphasized storytelling, ceremony, and culturally grounded openings (71,85). Informal communication and relationship-building were also recognized as essential elements of successful partnerships, with nine studies emphasizing the value of casual check-ins or \u0026ldquo;coffee chats\u0026rdquo; to foster psychological safety, particularly in virtual or hybrid environments (58,60,61,69,76,78,83,84,87).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEight sources (24%) explicitly framed communication as an ethical or philosophical principle of partnership rather than solely an operational task (24,59,62,64,65,77,81,85). These sources argued that communication not only transmits information but also redistributes power, ensures accountability, and affirms respect and reciprocity (24,59,62,64,65,77,81,85). Finally, reviews and case studies provided explicit recommendations on what should be reported or standardized for partnership communication (24,74,75,81). Salsberg et al (81)\u0026nbsp;advised documenting communication frequency, channels, and how absent partners were updated. McCutcheon et al\u0026nbsp;(74,75)\u0026nbsp;recommended reporting meeting frequency, attendance, modes, and decision-tracking mechanisms to demonstrate authentic partnership. Hoekstra et al\u0026nbsp;(24)\u0026nbsp;similarly identified communication as a core reporting domain, urging teams to describe both the relational dimensions of trust-building and power-sharing, and the logistical aspects of meeting structure and feedback systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 3: Research Partnership Training \u0026amp; Education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross 19 sources, partnership training and education programs aimed to strengthen the individual, relational, and institutional capabilities required for meaningful, equitable research collaboration (49,89\u0026ndash;106). Collectively, they advanced a growing consensus that training should integrate both technical skills (e.g., research methods, governance) and relational competencies (e.g., trust-building, reflexivity, cultural humility) (89,90,97\u0026ndash;99). Fourteen sources (74%) described taught or recommended core training competencies that included communication, partnership development, research ethics, reflexivity, and cultural humility (89,91\u0026ndash;93,95,97\u0026ndash;105). These sources recommended that curricula include explicit learning objectives around trust, communication, power-sharing, and co-learning, and that these objectives be reported alongside details of training content and delivery format (90,93,97,100).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEight programs (42%) incorporated co-learning and mutual-teaching models, positioning academic and community participants as co-educators and co-facilitators (89,92,93,98\u0026ndash;100,102,106). These sources detailed how facilitation power was balanced and how partner expertise informed course design, such as rotating facilitation roles (95), co-teaching between academic and lived-experience facilitators (99), and documenting co-design principles that guide curriculum delivery (100,102). Ten sources (53%) embedded equity, power, and historical context into training content, recommending that publications report how colonial histories, structural inequities, and cultural-safety frameworks were integrated into teaching (89,91\u0026ndash;93,97\u0026ndash;101,103). Six sources (32%) went further, calling for explicit reporting of cultural and relational safety mechanisms, such as Indigenous-led facilitation (93), ceremony or storytelling methods (97,106), and the creation of ethical spaces that support inclusion and restoration rather than extraction (89,99,100).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNine sources (47%) emphasized mentorship and relational continuity as essential to sustained learning, urging that training reports include mentoring structures, feedback loops, and follow-up mechanisms to show how learning translates into partnership practice (90,92,97,98,100,101,104\u0026ndash;106). Seven sources (37%) described interactive and experiential approaches, such as scenario-based problem solving, role-playing, and site visits, that immerse trainees in community contexts, noting that documenting these methods improves reproducibility and facilitates adaptation across settings (89,92,93,95,98,100,106). Five programs (26%) adopted online or hybrid delivery formats to enhance accessibility and sustainability, recommending that publications detail delivery structure, facilitation format, technological platforms, and adaptations for remote participation (91,93,98,101,104). Four sources (21%) emphasized acknowledgment of historical mistrust as both content and relational practice, advocating that documentation describe how lived experience and history were integrated through storytelling, acknowledgment rituals, or dialogue-based reflection (93,97,99,103).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, three guidance and review sources offered overarching recommendations for reporting partnership training (49,91,104). Tait and Williamson (104) identified four essential reporting elements, learning objectives, core competencies, training duration/format, and evaluation approach, arguing that omitting these details limits reproducibility. Parry et al (49)\u0026nbsp;recommended describing how learning is shared between researchers and partners, how barriers are addressed, and how partnership skills are maintained. Chen et al\u0026nbsp;(91)\u0026nbsp;emphasized documenting how training aligns with partnership principles, equity, co-learning, and sustainability, and how it prepares participants to navigate institutional constraints on collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 4: Research Partnership Conflict Management Guidance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross 17 sources, authors consistently characterized conflict as a natural and expected feature of collaborative research that, when addressed transparently, can deepen trust and strengthen partnerships\u0026nbsp;(24,49,58,107\u0026ndash;120).\u0026nbsp;Reported sources of conflict most often related to issues of power, process, and resources\u0026nbsp;(24,49,58,107\u0026ndash;120).\u0026nbsp;Financial and resource disparities were identified in six sources (35%), including delayed subcontracts, inequitable compensation, reimbursement barriers, and uneven workload burdens for community partners\u0026nbsp;(58,107,108,111,113,118).\u0026nbsp;Eight sources (47%) described tension arising from role ambiguity and power imbalances, where unclear responsibilities, unequal decision authority, or discrepancies in leadership and credit strained relationships\u0026nbsp;(49,58,109,111,113,115,117,120).\u0026nbsp;Similarly, eight sources (47%) highlighted competing priorities and timelines, particularly differences between service delivery and academic publication goals, or mismatched expectations about project pace and outputs\u0026nbsp;(58,108,110,111,115\u0026ndash;118).\u0026nbsp;Broader organizational and disciplinary culture clashes also contributed to conflict, with six sources (35%) describing how divergent definitions of rigor, administrative processes, and institutional hierarchies constrained equitable participation\u0026nbsp;(109\u0026ndash;112,114,117).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTen sources (59%) described proactive strategies designed to anticipate or limit conflict escalation\u0026nbsp;(58,107\u0026ndash;114,117). Commonly reported recommendations involved jointly defining roles, expectations, and decision authority early in the partnership (49,58,108,109,111,112,115). Several sources (41%) further advised embedding explicit communication and feedback norms into partnership documents such as MOUs, progress reports, and governance frameworks to ensure clarity and accountability\u0026nbsp;(49,58,110\u0026ndash;113,117). Six sources (35%) described structuring regular reflection opportunities and check-ins to surface emerging tensions, such as periodic role reviews, dedicated meetings, or the use of structured tasks like logic-model redevelopment to shift focus from personal conflict toward collective problem-solving\u0026nbsp;(58,108,109,114,116,117).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFormal mechanisms for conflict management were identified in seven sources (41%)\u0026nbsp;(49,58,110\u0026ndash;113,117). These included the use of written procedures or stepwise conflict-resolution plans, neutral facilitation or shared leadership models, and transparent approaches to budget and authorship governance\u0026nbsp;(49,58,110\u0026ndash;113,117). Eleven sources (65%) highlighted open communication and relational transparency as central to conflict prevention and repair, emphasizing honesty, early dialogue, and safe spaces for dissent\u0026nbsp;(24,49,58,107\u0026ndash;109,112,115\u0026ndash;118). Finally, several sources (29%) emphasized that\u0026nbsp;trust, equity, and history shapes whether conflict becomes destructive or transformative, particularly within community and Indigenous partnerships, where attention to historical power dynamics and cultural safety can determine whether tension reinforces or restores relationship integrity\u0026nbsp;(24,108,115,117,118).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 5: Research Partnership Co-Authorship Guidance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross 12 sources, co-authorship was described as both a technical process for allocating credit and a relational practice that recognizes diverse forms of expertise (35,49,119,121\u0026ndash;129). Six sources (50%) emphasized establishing explicit criteria and procedures up front, drawing on ICMJE and related editorial standards, using written authorship agreements, contribution tracking, and documented order-of-authorship rules, with provisions to renegotiate as roles evolve (49,122,125,126,128,129). Five sources (42%) converged on contribution-based authorship (not role/title-based), explicit prohibition of honorary/ghost authorship, early discussion of order, written records of decisions, and, where needed, neutral mediation (49,125,126,128,129). Participatory/IKT literature in six sources (50%) reported inclusive practices that invite non-academic partners into conception, drafting, review, and dissemination, with frequent endorsement of collective/organizational authorship and partner approval prior to submission, especially in Community Based Participatory Research and Indigenous contexts (49,119,121,122,124,127). Three sources (25%) explicitly documented variability in what counts as a \u0026ldquo;minimum\u0026rdquo; contribution, ranging from required writing, to writing on behalf of a collective, to non-writing intellectual/experiential input when substantive (49,122,123). To promote equitable participation in publishing, five sources (42%) described capacity-building supports such as paired mentoring, collaborative writing workshops, co-editing processes, and tailoring outputs for multiple audiences (49,119,122,125,127). Seven sources (58%) depicted authorship planning as an ongoing, transparent process revisited across the project lifecycle to reflect evolving contributions and to sustain fairness, trust, and accountability (49,119,122,125,126,128,129).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 6: Research Partnership Agreement Guidance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNineteen sources described the use of formal partnership agreements to define, operationalize, and sustain collaborative research relationships (37,47,49,77,113,130\u0026ndash;143). Agreements were described as memoranda of understanding (MOUs), research or data-sharing agreements, codes of conduct, or charters (37,47,49,77,113,130\u0026ndash;143). Twelve sources (63%) recommended developing agreements early in the collaboration to establish shared goals, partner roles, and governance processes (47,49,77,130,133\u0026ndash;139,143), and three (16%) highlighted the need to revisit and update agreements as partnerships evolve (49,137,141). Six sources (32%) specified detailing partner roles/responsibilities and shared decision-making/governance in the agreement (49,130,136,140,141,143).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflict-resolution and termination clauses were also common, appearing in ten sources (53%) as key mechanisms for addressing disputes, unexpected project changes, or partnership dissolution (49,77,113,130,136,137,139,141\u0026ndash;143). Fourteen sources (74%) explicitly addressed authorship, intellectual property, and data ownership, including who could publish, how authorship would be determined, and how data would be stored, shared, and destroyed (37,47,49,77,130\u0026ndash;134,136,138,139,141,143). Nine sources (47%) emphasized that agreements should reflect ethical and cultural principles, including respect, reciprocity, Indigenous sovereignty, and community approval processes for dissemination (37,47,49,132,134,135,138,141). Finally, seven sources (37%) provided specific guidance on what should be reported when describing agreements in publications or protocols, including who co-developed the agreement, when it was created, what domains it covered (e.g., governance, authorship, data), and how it was maintained or revised (47,49,130,132,136,142,143).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRapid Scan 7: Research Partnership Collaborative Product Ownership Scan\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree sources described ownership arrangements as formalized mechanisms to promote equity, transparency, and accountability within research partnerships (47,81,132). Across studies, ownership was conceptualized as a negotiated process that defined who controlled, accessed, and benefited from research products, including data, analyses, and dissemination outputs (47,81,132). All three sources emphasized that ownership should be explicitly defined within written agreements and grounded in shared decision-making between academic and community partners (47,81,132).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMohammed et al (47) described ownership as an ongoing process of negotiation, highlighting how differing interpretations between university and tribal partners led to the development of joint data-storage procedures that balanced academic accessibility with tribal sovereignty. This paper reported that data were stored in both locations, within the community and at the university, to ensure analytical feasibility while preserving community control (47). Funnell et al (132) reported that their partnership formalized co-ownership of all research products, including manuscripts and presentations, interpreting ownership as encompassing all processes, methods, results, and products of the collaboration. Salsberg et al (81) similarly described explicit agreements specifying ownership, interpretation, and data-sharing procedures, recommending that these agreements include provisions for joint interpretation, a \u0026ldquo;no veto\u0026rdquo; rule for publications, and transfer of data control to community partners following project completion. They argued that ownership must embed both procedural fairness and enduring community benefit, framing data stewardship as a continuing relational responsibility rather than a finite research output (81).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis series of rapid environmental scans synthesized seven domains of research partnership practices: reporting, communication, training and education, conflict management, co-authorship, agreements, and ownership. While the scans were not originally categorized by relational or structural features, we observed that reported practices tended to emphasize either relational processes (e.g., communication, trust-building) or structural mechanisms (e.g., agreements, governance frameworks) across domains. We use this distinction as a \u003cstrong\u003econceptual lens\u003c/strong\u003e to interpret and integrate findings\u0026nbsp;(6,14,144,145).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelational practices, including role clarification, shared decision-making, and structured communication, were frequently described as the foundation of effective collaboration (146,147,147). These practices were reported as essential for fostering trust, mutual respect, and shared purpose, but were rarely positioned as sufficient without complementary structural supports (6,144,146,148). At the same time, multiple sources cautioned that relational work is rarely sufficient on its own without complementary structures, and that it requires intentional time and resourcing that are often undervalued in academic systems (6,14,144,146).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructural mechanisms, such as partnership agreements, authorship frameworks, and ownership provisions, were consistently presented as tools to support clear communication, shared accountability, and equitable governance (6,47,132,136,137). Agreements most often specified partner roles and responsibilities, decision-making processes, conflict-resolution and termination procedures, and stewardship of data and materials; they were described as most useful when co-developed early, tailored to context, and periodically reviewed and revised (47,49,130,133,136,137,139,141,143). Authorship and ownership were likewise framed as negotiated processes that define contributions, dissemination expectations, and control over data and products (47,122\u0026ndash;124,126,128,132). Several papers provided explicit \u003cstrong\u003ereporting recommendations\u003c/strong\u003e for transparency, for example, documenting who co-developed agreements, when they were created, domains covered (governance, authorship, data), and how procedures were maintained or revised over time (49,113,130,133).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross both relational and structural domains, the literature converged on the value of \u003cstrong\u003eclear governance\u003c/strong\u003e: making decision processes explicit, clarifying how contributions are recognized (including authorship and acknowledgements), and specifying shared accountability (37,47,49,130,132\u0026ndash;134,136\u0026ndash;143). Many sources linked these governance arrangements to broader commitments to equity and self-determination, particularly in Indigenous and community-based contexts, emphasizing principles such as reciprocity, shared authority, and community approval for dissemination (6,12,91,149\u0026ndash;151).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings from this synthesis indicate that technical tools such as memoranda of understanding, authorship agreements, or conflict procedures are insufficient on their own to sustain meaningful collaboration (6,144,146,148). Reported practices emphasized the need for deliberate attention to both relational and structural dimensions of partnership work (6,145,152). \u003cem\u003eTogether, these relational processes and structural mechanisms function as implementation strategies because they shape how evidence is co-produced, how decisions are made, how roles are defined, and how partners are engaged across the research and implementation lifecycle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(153)\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThey also align with well-established determinants of implementation, including communication quality, trust, role clarity, governance structures, and relevant contextual factors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(154,155)\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral sources highlighted the importance of making relational work intentional and scheduled, for example, by allocating time for ongoing check-ins, co-setting agendas, and periodically reviewing roles (6,148). Treating these as intentional components of project design, rather than informal activities, was described as a way to reduce role ambiguity and communication challenges (6,148).Structural tools such as agreements and authorship frameworks were most often described as useful when treated as living documents, co-created, context-specific, and revisited throughout the duration of a partnership (6,49,132,146,151). Embedding processes for reflection and revision within these tools was reported to enhance accountability while maintaining flexibility (6,146,151). Attention to context and power was also identified as essential when selecting and adapting partnership practices (6,12,91,150). Several sources situated partnership decisions within broader histories of extractive research, organizational hierarchies, and researcher positionality (14,145,151). Within these contexts, culturally grounded governance mechanisms, such as community-led approval processes or shared data stewardship, were described as strategies to promote equity and accountability (14,145,151).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, sustaining equitable partnerships was described as requiring institutional as well as partnership-level support (6,91). Policies, recognition structures, and funding mechanisms that normalize relational and structural partnership practices were identified as key to long-term sustainability (6,14,150). Overall, this synthesis provides a descriptive foundation for such system-level efforts by consolidating documented strategies that can be adapted to strengthen transparency, shared accountability, and equity in partnership processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFuture Directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should extend this work by examining how relational and structural practices interact within and across different contexts, rather than assuming their effectiveness. Studies could explore which combinations of practices are associated with specific partnership processes or outcomes, for whom, and under what conditions (6,144). Future work could also focus on co-developing and testing operational resources that translate the IKT Guiding Principles and other partnership principles into applied partnership tools and align with existing equity assessment frameworks (14,49,145). Research examining how institutional policies, internal funding mechanisms, and recognition systems influence the uptake and sustainability of partnership practices would clarify the structural enablers and constraints that shape long-term collaboration (6,91). Additional attention could be directed toward governance arrangements, such as co-chairing, rotating facilitation, or community-led agreements, and how these operate across diverse contexts, including Indigenous and disability research environments (12,47,132,149\u0026ndash;151). Finally, comparative work assessing the transferability and adaptability of reported practices across research domains, including spinal cord injury and other health domains, would help clarify their adaptability and general applicability (24,156).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study\u0026rsquo;s strength lies in its systematic and transparent approach to identifying and synthesizing reported partnership practices across seven domains of collaboration. Following established guidance for rapid environmental scans, the process balanced methodological rigour and timeliness through structured screening, dual verification, and a registered protocol. Partner input throughout the process ensured that the scan topics and outputs reflected\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;needs for practical, descriptive evidence\u003c/strong\u003e on research-partnership processes. The inclusion of both academic and grey literature expanded the scope beyond peer-reviewed studies, capturing applied examples and tools often excluded from systematic reviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations must be noted. The rapid scan design prioritized efficiency over exhaustive coverage, and therefore some relevant studies or grey literature may not have been captured. Only English-language sources were included, limiting cultural and linguistic diversity. The synthesis is descriptive, summarizing reported practices without assessing their quality, effectiveness, or contextual appropriateness. As most included studies originated in high-income, health-related, or academic-led contexts, findings may not reflect partnership approaches in other settings, particularly low- and middle-income or community-led systems. Furthermore, because the data were drawn from published reports, underlying relational dynamics and informal practices may be underrepresented. Overall, these findings should be interpreted as a \u003cstrong\u003efoundational map\u003c/strong\u003e of documented partnership practices and relational-structural strategies, rather than as evaluative evidence of their effectiveness. Future studies are needed to examine how these practices function and interact across diverse contexts and institutional environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThese rapid environmental scans describe how research teams and partners have approached seven domains of partnership practice. In our interpretation, reported activities can be understood as emphasizing relational processes or structural mechanisms of collaboration that together characterize how partnership work is organized in the literature. This synthesis offers a consolidated map of documented approaches that teams and institutions can adapt in alignment with the IKT Guiding Principles. Consistent with the scope of rapid scans, this work does not assess effectiveness; rather, it establishes a \u003cstrong\u003edescriptive foundation\u003c/strong\u003e for future evaluation and operationalization of partnership practices across diverse contexts, including spinal cord injury research. Ultimately, these findings serve as a practical starting point for developing, adapting, implementing, and testing partnership guidance that supports transparency, accountability, and equity in collaborative research, while recognizing that no single practice or framework is universally applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e This work is supported by the \u003cstrong\u003eSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, no. 890-2022-0131.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests: \u003c/strong\u003eThe authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish declara\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003etion:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials: \u003c/strong\u003eThe full datasets supporting conclusions of this article are available at Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/xvug3/overview?view_only=e079b7c57f0e4d29af2f8ac862c09f08.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions Statement: \u003c/strong\u003eAS, EG, MS, FH, KS, JC, CM, RW, AK, GC, KP, VC, SS, IKT Guiding Principles Partnership, and HG all contributed to the conception and design of the work. AS, LF, PH, KB, ML, EG, MS, and CS all contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. AS wrote the main manuscript.All authors contributed to the revising of the manuscript and approved the submitted version. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoland L, Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Building an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) evidence base: colloquium proceedings and research direction. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020 Dec;18(1):8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGagliardi AR, Kothari A, Graham ID. Research agenda for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in healthcare: what we know and do not yet know. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Feb;71(2):105\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\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. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2021 Apr;102(4):656\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJull J, Giles A, Graham ID. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implementation Sci. 2017 Dec;12(1):150.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlamondon K, Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Shahram S. 2.2 Equity, Power, and Transformative Research Coproduction. In: Research Co-Production in Healthcare [Internet]. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Ltd; 2022 [cited 2025 Mar 14]. p. 34\u0026ndash;53. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119757269.ch3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWallerstein N, Giatti L, B\u0026oacute;gus C, Akerman M, Jacobi P, de Toledo R, et al. Shared Participatory Research Principles and Methodologies: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil\u0026mdash;45 Years after Paulo Freire\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Pedagogy of the Oppressed.\u0026rdquo; Societies. 2017 Apr 13;7(2):6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\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. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2024 Feb 14;1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\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. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2023 July 22;ibad040.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnderson KD. Targeting Recovery: Priorities of the Spinal Cord-Injured Population. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2004 Oct;21(10):1371\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnderson KD. Equitable partnerships between scientists and persons living with spinal cord injury will strengthen research scope, quality, and outcomes. Current opinion in neurology. 2021;34(6):783\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmith B, Williams O, Bone L, Collective the MSWC production. Co-production: A resource to guide co-producing research in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2022 Mar 19;1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrosschild C, Huynh N, De Sousa I, Bawafaa E, Brown H. Where is critical analysis of power and positionality in knowledge translation? Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021 June 11;19(1):92.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFazal N, Jackson SF, Wong K, Yessis J, Jetha N. Between worst and best: developing criteria to identify promising practices in health promotion and disease prevention for the Canadian Best Practices Portal. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017 Nov;37(11):386\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlamondon KM, Brisbois B, Dubent L, Larson CP. Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis. Global Health. 2021 July 2;17(1):73.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBandola-Gill J, Arthur M, Leng RI. What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evidence \u0026amp; Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice. 2022 Mar 22;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOetzel JG, Boursaw B, Magarati M, Dickson E, Sanchez-Youngman S, Morales L, et al. Exploring theoretical mechanisms of community-engaged research: a multilevel cross-sectional national study of structural and relational practices in community-academic partnerships. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2022 May 2;21(1):59.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine. 2015 Sept 16;13(1):224.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTricco AC, Garritty CM, Boulos L, Lockwood C, Wilson M, McGowan J, et al. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;126:177\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCharlton P, Doucet S, Azar R, Nagel DA, Boulos L, Luke A, et al. The use of the environmental scan in health services delivery research: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019 Sept 1;9(9):e029805.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews. 2012 Feb 10;1(1):10.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDobbins M. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. 2017 [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Rapid Review Guidebook. Available from: https://www.nccmt.ca/tools/rapid-review-guidebook\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. 2024 Feb 6;e076335.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeam Members - IKT Guiding Principles [Internet]. [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Available from: https://ikt.ok.ubc.ca/our-team/team-members/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, McKay RC, Vis-Dunbar M, Sibley KM, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020 Dec;18(1):51.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMrklas KJ, Boyd JM, Shergill S, Merali S, Khan M, Nowell L, et al. Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2023 Jan 5;21(1):3.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShi Z, Shwed A, Graham I, Scarrow G, Athanasopoulos P, Noonan V, et al. Research funders in spinal cord injury research and their approaches to research partnerships: An environmental scan. submitted.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFox G, Fergusson DA, Sadeknury A, Nicholls SG, Smith M, Stacey D, et al. What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines. Health Expect. 2024 Jan 18;27(1):e13970.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMallidou AA, Atherton P, Chan L, Frisch N, Glegg S, Scarrow G. Core knowledge translation competencies: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Dec;18(1):502.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYeung E, Scodras S, Salbach NM, Kothari A, Graham ID. Identifying competencies for integrated knowledge translation: a Delphi study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Dec;21(1):1181.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchiavenato M, Chu F. PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Education in Practice. 2021 Oct;56:103194.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCovidence [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 16]. Covidence - Better systematic review management. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMandalios J. RADAR: An approach for helping students evaluate Internet sources. Journal of Information Science. 2013 Aug;39(4):470\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSye D, Thompson D. Tools, Tests, and Checklists: The Evolution and Future of Source Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of New Librarianship. 2023 Mar 8;8(1):76\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun KL, Tsark JU, Santos L, Aitaoto N, Chong C. Building Native Hawaiian capacity in cancer research and programming. A legacy of \u0026rsquo;Imi Hale. Cancer. 2006;107(8 Suppl):2082\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCassidy CE, Shin HD, Ramage E, Conway A, Mrklas K, Laur C, et al. Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2021 Nov 2;19(1):135.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChamberlain C, Gee G, Brown SJ, Atkinson J, Herrman H, Gartland D, et al. Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future-co-designing perinatal strategies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents experiencing complex trauma: framework and protocol for a community-based participatory action research study. BMJ open. 2019;9(6):e028397.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChung‐Do JJ, Ho‐Lastimosa I, Keaulana S, Ho KJr, Hwang PW, Radovich T, et al. Waimānalo Pono Research Hui: A community\u0026ndash;academic partnership to promote native Hawaiian wellness through culturally grounded and community‐driven research and programming. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2019;64(1\u0026ndash;2):107\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDelisle T. Cardiovascular disease prevention in firefighters [Internet]. ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning; 2015. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;AuthType=shib\u0026amp;db=psyh\u0026amp;AN=2015-99210-027\u0026amp;site=ehost-live\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;custid=s5672194\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDobransky-Fasiska D, Brown C, Pincus HA, Nowalk MP, Wieland M, Parker LS, et al. Developing a community-academic partnership to improve recognition and treatment of depression in underserved African American and White elders. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2009;17(11):953\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFinnegan V. Community-based research: A mixed methods study of the influence of community educators\u0026rsquo; efficacy beliefs, program attitudes, and fidelity intention on practice [Internet]. ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning; 2023. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;AuthType=shib\u0026amp;db=psyh\u0026amp;AN=2023-68882-236\u0026amp;site=ehost-live\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;custid=s5672194\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFisher CM. Assessing sexual health information \u0026amp; resource provision in Indiana youth-serving community-based organizations utilizing community-based participatory research methods [Internet]. ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning; 2010. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;AuthType=shib\u0026amp;db=psyh\u0026amp;AN=2010-99080-044\u0026amp;site=ehost-live\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;custid=s5672194\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGleason-Comstock J, Streater A, Calhoun CB, Simpson HL, Rolack R, Norman SJr. Development of a Community-Based Participatory Research Effort to Evaluate Conventional HIV Testing (CHT) and HIV Rapid Testing (HRT). Journal of HIV/AIDS \u0026amp; Social Services. 2006;5(3\u0026ndash;4):201\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHernandez ND, Dorsey J, Glass DM, Pope E, Worthy N, Blasingame E, et al. Community-Engaged Approaches to Address the Ethical Concerns of Maternal Mental Health Disparities Research. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved. 2019;30(4S):12\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Sibley KM, Nguyen T, Vis-Dunbar M, Neilson CJ, et al. A review protocol on research partnerships: a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach. Systematic reviews. 2018;7(1):217.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKyoon-Achan G, Lavoie J, Kinew KA, Phillips-Beck W, Ibrahim N, Sinclair S, et al. Innovating for transformation in first nations health using community-based participatory research. Qualitative Health Research. 2018;28(7):1036\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLong KA, Goldish M, Lown EA, Ostrowski NL, Alderfer MA, Marsland AL, et al. Major lessons learned from a nationally-based community\u0026ndash;academic partnership: Addressing sibling adjustment to childhood cancer. Families, Systems, \u0026amp; Health. 2015;33(1):61\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMohammed SA, Walters KL, LaMarr J, Evans‐Campbell T, Fryberg S. Finding middle ground: Negotiating university and tribal community interests in community‐based participatory research. Nursing Inquiry. 2012;19(2):116\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNieweglowski K, Sheehan L, Deshpande A. A systematic review of community-based participatory research studies involving individuals with mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal [Internet]. 2023; Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;AuthType=shib\u0026amp;db=psyh\u0026amp;AN=2024-22009-001\u0026amp;site=ehost-live\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;custid=s5672194ORCID: [email protected]\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParry D, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Fcpc C. Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research. 2015;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePozniak K, Cross A, Babic R, Cavalieros V, Martens R, Rosenbaum P, et al. Co‐development of the ENVISAGE‐families programme for parents of children with disabilities: Reflections on a parent\u0026ndash;researcher partnership. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2022;69(6):653\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePurvis RS, Long CR, James LP, Kimminau K, Riklon S, Carleton A, et al. Dissemination Protocol for Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships with Marshallese Pacific Islanders in Arkansas. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2021;15(3):369\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamage ER, Burke M, Galloway M, Graham ID, Janssen H, Marsden DL, et al. Fit for purpose. Co-production of complex behavioural interventions. A practical guide and exemplar of co-producing a telehealth-delivered exercise intervention for people with stroke. Health research policy and systems. 2022;20(1):2.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSprague Martinez L, Rapkin BD, Young A, Freisthler B, Glasgow L, Hunt T, et al. Community engagement to implement evidence-based practices in the HEALing Communities Study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence [Internet]. 2020;217. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;AuthType=shib\u0026amp;db=psyh\u0026amp;AN=2020-93633-001\u0026amp;site=ehost-live\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;custid=s5672194ORCID: [email protected]\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSymanski E, An Han H, Hopkins L, Smith MA, McCurdy S, Han I, et al. Metal air pollution partnership solutions: building an academic-government-community-industry collaboration to improve air quality and health in environmental justice communities in Houston. Environmental health : a global access science source. 2020;19(1):39.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eViglione C, Boynton-Jarrett R. The GROWBABY Research Network: A framework for advancing health equity through community engaged practice-based research. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2023;27(2):210\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWu AW, Hwang S, Weston CM, Ibe C, Boonyasai RT, Bone L, et al. Baltimore CONNECT: A Randomized Trial to Build Partnership Between Community Organizations and a Local Health System. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2018;12(3):297\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang J, Park B. A scoping review key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research. PloS one. 2023;18(1):e0279563.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZoellner J, Hill JL, Brock D, Barlow ML, Alexander R, Brito F, et al. One-year mixed-methods case study of a community\u0026ndash;academic advisory board addressing childhood obesity. Health Promotion Practice. 2017;18(6):833\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaik ES, Koshy A, Hardy BW. Communicating CRISPR: Challenges and opportunities in engaging the public. Progress in molecular biology and translational science. 2022;188(1):171\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarn P, Rideout KL, Lo W, Josey D, Vint Z, Sha C, et al. Better Together: Launching and Nurturing a Community Stakeholder Committee to Enhance Care and Research for Asthma and COPD. Chest. 2022;161(2):382\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurhansstipanov L, Christopher S, Schumacher SA. Lessons learned from community-based participatory research in Indian country. Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 2005;12 Suppl 2(dlg, 9438457):70\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCasola AR, Medley L, Kunes BC, McGlone N. Using Our Strengths: Establishing a Community-Academic Partnership to Tackle Menstrual Health Concerns in Philadelphia. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2023;17(1):79\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCro S, Kahan BC, Patel A, Henley A, C J, Hellyer P, et al. Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool. Trials. 2023;24(1):443.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis MI, Olson BD, Jason LA, Alvarez J, Ferrari JR. Cultivating and maintaining effective action research partnerships: the DePaul and Oxford House collaborative. Journal of prevention \u0026amp; intervention in the community. 2006;31(1\u0026ndash;2):3\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoold S, Rowe Z, Calhoun K, Campbell T, Danis M, Hammad A, et al. The State as Community in Community-Based Participatory Research. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2016;10(4):515\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHawke LD, Relihan J, Miller J, McCann E, Rong J, Darnay K, et al. Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution: Practical recommendations for researchers. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2018;21(6):944\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJeyakumaran T, Eggiman-Ketter J, Spadzinski A, Wolfe DL. Identifying strategies and related principles supporting a co-design approach in an assistive device service delivery and research platform. Front Rehabil Sci. 2024 July 23;5:1364016.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohnson S, Cardona D, Gramling B, Hamilton C, Hoffmann R, Sabir J. Engaging the for-profit sector in community-based participatory research: lessons from the ground. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2014;8(4):523\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJoosten YA, Israel TL, Williams NA, Boone LR, Schlundt DG, Mouton CP, et al. Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2015;90(12):1646\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKalbarczyk A, Rao A, Mahendradhata Y, Majumdar P, Decker E, Anwar HB, et al. Evaluating the process of partnership and research in global health: reflections from the STRIPE project. BMC public health. 2020;20(Suppl 2):1058.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKothari EA, Mccutcheon C, Boland L, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK NO. 2 | 2020. 2020;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee RE, Soltero EG, Mama SK, Saavedra F, Ledoux TA, McNeill L. Developing a transcultural academic-community partnership to arrest obesity. International quarterly of community health education. 2013;34(3):215\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLowes L, Robling MR, Bennert K, Crawley C, Hambly H, Hawthorne K, et al. Involving lay and professional stakeholders in the development of a research intervention for the DEPICTED study. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2011;14(3):250\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMccutcheon EC, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK NO. 1. 2019;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMccutcheon EC, Reszel J, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK NO. 4. 2021;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMccutcheon EC, Reszel J, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK V5. 2022;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNorris KC, Brusuelas R, Jones L, Miranda J, Duru OK, Mangione CM. Partnering with community-based organizations: an academic institution\u0026rsquo;s evolving perspective. Ethnicity \u0026amp; disease. 2007;17(1 Suppl 1):S27-32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePierce LL. Rehabilitation nurses working as collaborative research teams. Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses. 2005;30(4):132\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePinto RM, da Silva SB, Penido C, Spector AY. International Participatory Research Framework: triangulating procedures to build health research capacity in Brazil. Health promotion international. 2012;27(4):435\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReszel EJ, Mccutcheon C, Kothari A, Graham ID. THE INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION RESEARCH NETWORK CASEBOOK. 2022;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSalsberg J, Parry D, Pluye P, Macridis S, Herbert CP, Macaulay AC. Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: a critical review. J Environ Public Health. 2015;2015:191856.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSamuel CA, Lightfoot AF, Schaal J, Yongue C, Black K, Ellis K, et al. Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2018;12(1):89\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSuarez-Balcazar Y, Hammel J, Mayo L, Inwald S, Sen S. Innovation in global collaborations: from student placement to mutually beneficial exchanges. Occupational therapy international. 2013;20(2):97\u0026ndash;104.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTariq S, Grewal EK, Booth R, Nat B, Ka-Caleni T, Larsen M, et al. Lessons learned from a virtual Community-Based Participatory Research project: prioritizing needs of people who have diabetes and experiences of homelessness to co-design a participatory action project. Research involvement and engagement. 2023;9(1):46.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eValaitis RF, McEachern LW, Harris S, Dick T, Yovanovich J, Yessis J, et al. Annual gatherings as an integrated knowledge translation strategy to support local and traditional food systems within and across Indigenous community contexts: a qualitative study. Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme. 2022;47(11):1051\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVarshney D, Atkins S, Das A, Diwan V. Understanding collaboration in a multi-national research capacity-building partnership: a qualitative study. Health research policy and systems. 2016;14(1):64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilliamson HJ, Chief C, Jimenez D, Begay A, Milner TF, Sullivan S, et al. Voices of Community Partners: Perspectives Gained from Conversations of Community-Based Participatory Research Experiences. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17(14).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXia Y, Huang H, Yu Q, Halili X, Chen Q. Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing education: A theory-guided scoping review. Nurse education in practice. 2023;73(101090848):103839.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBattaglia TA, Megrath K, Spencer N, Pamphile J, Crossno C, Maschke A, et al. Communicating to Engage: An Improvisational Theater-Based Communication Training Designed to Support Community-Academic Partnership Development. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2021;96(11):1564\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBurke JG, Hess S, Hoffmann K, Guizzetti L, Loy E, Gielen A, et al. Translating community-based participatory research principles into practice. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2013;7(2):115\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen RC, Krebill H, Kennedy T, Douglas S, Neufeld KL, Welch DR, et al. A community engagement training program for basic and translational cancer researchers. Cancer causes \u0026amp; control : CCC. 2023;34(12):1123\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCoombe CM, Schulz AJ, Brakefield-Caldwell W, Gray C, Guzman JR, Kieffer EC, et al. Applying Experiential Action Learning Pedagogy to an Intensive Course to Enhance Capacity to Conduct Community-Based Participatory Research. Pedagogy in health promotion. 2020;6(3):168\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJernigan VBB, Jacob T, Styne D. The adaptation and implementation of a community-based participatory research curriculum to build tribal research capacity. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(Suppl 3):S424\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJimenez-Chavez JC, Rosario-Maldonado FJ, Torres JA, Ramos-Lucca A, Castro-Figueroa EM, Santiago L. Assessing Acceptability, Feasibility, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Community-Based Participatory Research Curriculum for Community Members: A Contribution to the Development of a Community-Academia Research Partnership. Health equity. 2018;2(1):272\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLaborde DJ, Brannock K, Breland-Noble A, Parrish T. Pilot test of cooperative learning format for training mental health researchers and black community leaders in partnership skills. Journal of the National Medical Association. 2007;99(12):1359\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee BK, Gilbert R, Knighton R. Couple therapy in substance use and gambling disorders: Promoting health system change. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal. 2020;42(3):228\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMasuda JR, Creighton G, Nixon S, Frankish J. Building capacity for community-based participatory research for health disparities in Canada: the case of \u0026ldquo;Partnerships in Community Health Research\u0026rdquo;. Health promotion practice. 2011;12(2):280\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeurer LN, DeNomie M, Morzinski JA, Nelson DA, Meurer JR, Chandler TE, et al. Incorporating Community Engagement in Primary Care Research Training: Eleven-Year Outcomes. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2020;14(1):63\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorgan J, Neufeld SD, Holroyd H, Ruiz J, Taylor T, Nolan S, et al. Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET): developing accessible and relevant research ethics training for community-based participatory research with people with lived and living experience using illicit drugs and harm reduction workers. Harm reduction journal. 2023;20(1):86.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNguyen-Truong CKY, Fritz RL, Lee J, Lau C, Le C, Kim J, et al. Interactive CO-learning for Research Engagement and Education (I-COREE) Curriculum to Build Capacity Between Community Partners and Academic Researchers. Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal. 2018;3(4):126\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlumb M, Poole SF, Sarantis H, Braun S, Cordeiro J, Van Olphen J, et al. Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019;16(22).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRubin CL, Martinez LS, Chu J, Hacker K, Brugge D, Pirie A, et al. Community-engaged pedagogy: a strengths-based approach to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2012;6(4):481\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmikowski J, Dewane S, Johnson ME, Brems C, Bruss C, Roberts LW. Community-based participatory research for improved mental health. Ethics \u0026amp; Behavior. 2009;19(6):461\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTait H, Williamson A. A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers. Health research policy and systems. 2019;17(1):98.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYigletu S, Kosinski KC, Kuah A, Alfaro K, Holmes AC, Tendulkar SA. \u0026ldquo;Collaboration Toward One Collective Goal\u0026rdquo;: A Mixed-Methods Study of Short-Term Learning Outcomes and Long-Term Impacts Among Students Participating in an Undergraduate Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Course. Frontiers in public health. 2021;9(101616579):694840.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZittleman L, Wright L, Ortiz BC, Fleming C, Loudhawk-Hedgepeth C, Marshall J, et al. Colorado Immersion Training in Community Engagement: Because You Can\u0026rsquo;t Study What You Don\u0026rsquo;t Know. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2014;8(1):117\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFreeman ER, Brugge D, Bennett-Bradley WM, Levy JI, Carrasco ER. Challenges of conducting community-based participatory research in Boston\u0026rsquo;s neighborhoods to reduce disparities in asthma. Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2006;83(6):1013\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHorowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared?. Circulation. 2009;119(19):2633\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDowns TJ, Ross L, Mucciarone D, Calvache MC, Taylor O, Goble R. Participatory testing and reporting in an environmental-justice community of Worcester, Massachusetts: a pilot project. Environmental health : a global access science source. 2010;9(101147645):34.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaskell J, Newcombe P, Martin G, Kimble R. Conducting a paediatric multi-centre RCT with an industry partner: challenges and lessons learned. Journal of paediatrics and child health. 2012;48(11):974\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAllen ML, Svetaz AV, Hurtado GA, Linares R, Garcia-Huidobro D, Hurtado M. The developmental stages of a community-university partnership: the experience of Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2013;7(3):271\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHenderson S, Kendall E, Forday P, Cowan D. Partnership functioning: a case in point between government, nongovernment, and a university in Australia. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2013;7(4):385\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCalderon JL, Norris KC, Hardigan PC, Calderon LA, Hays RD. Case Study of an Unsustainable Community-Academic Partnership: Toward Core Standards for the Structure of Emerging Participatory Research. Ethnicity \u0026amp; disease. 2015;25(3):363\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMayan M, Lo S, Richter S, Dastjerdi M, Drummond J. Community-Based Participatory Research: Ameliorating Conflict When Community and Research Practices Meet. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2016;10(2):259\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGaffy E, Brijnath B, Dow B. Co-producing research with people impacted by dementia and service providers: issues and challenges. Public health research \u0026amp; practice. 2022;32(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVikre EK. Engaging communities in obesity prevention: A case study of partnership dynamics and participant experience in community based participatory research [Internet]. ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning; 2015. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true\u0026amp;AuthType=shib\u0026amp;db=psyh\u0026amp;AN=2015-99060-284\u0026amp;site=ehost-live\u0026amp;scope=site\u0026amp;custid=s5672194\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co‐creation in community‐based health services: Literature review and case study. Milbank Quarterly. 2016;94(2):392\u0026ndash;429.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAyoub CC, Geary E, Londhe R, Hiratsuka V, Roberts E. Building evaluation partnerships with tribal communities for home visiting. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2018;39(3):295\u0026ndash;302.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\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 Research Policy and Systems. 2020 Mar 30;18(1):35.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKothari A. Integrated Knowledge Translation Case Notes [Internet]. Western University; 2020. Available from: https://www.uwo.ca/fhs/kt/research_projects/2020-HS-9623-Case-Notes.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBharadwaj L. A framework for building research partnerships with first nations communities. Environmental health insights. 2014;8(101488505):15\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBordeaux BC, Wiley C, Tandon SD, Horowitz CR, Brown PB, Bass EB. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2007;1(3):281\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCastleden H, Morgan VS, Neimanis A. Researchers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on collective/community co-authorship in community-based participatory indigenous research. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE. 2010;5(4):23\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChavez V, Israel B, Allen AJ 3rd, DeCarlo MF, Lichtenstein R, Schulz A, et al. A Bridge Between Communities: Video-making using principles of community-based participatory research. Health promotion practice. 2004;5(4):395\u0026ndash;403.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFlicker S, Nixon SA. Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams: considerations for novice scholars conducting community-engaged research. Health promotion international. 2018;33(1):152\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHess CW, Bruckner C, Kaiser T, Mauron A, Wahli W, Wenzel UJ, et al. Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations. Swiss medical weekly. 2015;145(d10, 100970884):w14108.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNovak-Pavlic M, Gorter JW, Phoenix MP, Micsinszki SK, Pozniak K, Li L, et al. Patients and Families as Partners in Patient-Oriented Research: How Should They Be Compensated?. Journal of patient-centered research and reviews. 2023;10(2):82\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResnik DB, Kennedy CE. Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research. Accountability in research. 2010;17(4):198\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWashburn JJ. Encouraging research collaboration through ethical and fair authorship: A model policy. Ethics \u0026amp; Behavior. 2008;18(1):44\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBegun AL, Berger LK, Otto-Salaj LL, Rose SJ. Developing effective social work university-community research collaborations. Social Work. 2010;55(1):54\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDeLuca AN, Regenberg A, Sugarman J, Murdoch DR, Levine O. Bioethical considerations in developing a biorepository for the Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health project. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2012;54 Suppl 2(a4j, 9203213):S172-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunnell S, Tanuseputro P, Letendre A, Bearskin LB, Walker J. \u0026ldquo;Nothing about us, without us\u0026rdquo; How community-based participatory research methods were adapted in an indigenous end-of-life study using previously collected data\u0026rsquo;: Erratum. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2020;39(2):330\u0026ndash;330.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarding A, Harper B, Stone D, O\u0026rsquo;Neill C, Berger P, Harris S, et al. Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environmental health perspectives. 2012;120(1):6\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHeaney CD, Wilson SM, Wilson OR. The West End Revitalization Association\u0026rsquo;s community-owned and -managed research model: development, implementation, and action. Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action. 2007;1(4):339\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHenderson TL, Shigeto A, Ponzetti JJJr, Edwards AB, Stanley J, Story C. A cultural‐variant approach to community‐based participatory research: New ideas for family professionals. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 2017;66(4):629\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHunter J, Lounsbury D, Rapkin B, Remien R. A Practical Framework for Navigating Ethical Challenges in Collaborative Community Research. Global journal of community psychology practice. 2011;1(3):12\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePivik JR, Goelman H. Evaluation of a community-based participatory research consortium from the perspective of academics and community service providers focused on child health and well-being. Health Education \u0026amp; Behavior. 2011;38(3):271\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQuigley D. A Review of Improved Ethical Practices in Environmental and Public Health Research: Case Examples from Native Communities. Health Education \u0026amp; Behavior. 2006;33(2):130\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoss LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, Smith GRJr, et al. The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2010;5(1):19\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSteens R, Van Regenmortel T, Hermans K. Beyond the research\u0026ndash;practice gap: The development of an academic collaborative centre for child and family social work. British Journal of Social Work. 2018;48(6):1611\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTan EJ, McGill S, Tanner EK, Carlson MC, Rebok GW, Seeman TE, et al. The evolution of an academic\u0026ndash;community partnership in the design, implementation, and evaluation of Experience Corps\u0026reg; Baltimore City: A courtship model. The Gerontologist. 2014;54(2):314\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUneke CJ, Ezeoha AE, Uro-Chukwu HC, Ezeonu CT, Igboji J. Promoting Researchers and Policy-Makers Collaboration in Evidence-Informed Policy-Making in Nigeria: Outcome of a Two-Way Secondment Model between University and Health Ministry. International journal of health policy and management. 2018;7(6):522\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYonge O, Skillen DL, Henderson D. Collaborative research by graduate students. Image--the journal of nursing scholarship. 1996;28(4):365\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice: A Realist Review for Health Research and Practice. Milbank Quarterly. 2012 June;90(2):311\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLarson CP, Plamondon KM, Dubent L, Bicaba F, Bicaba A, Minh TH, et al. The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022 Apr 28;10(2):e2100316.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOetzel JG, Zhou C, Duran B, Pearson C, Magarati M, Lucero J, et al. Establishing the Psychometric Properties of Constructs in a Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model. Am J Health Promot. 2015 May;29(5):e188\u0026ndash;202.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLucero J, Wallerstein N, Duran B, Alegria M, Greene-Moton E, Israel B, et al. Development of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Process and Outcomes of Community-Based Participatory Research. J Mix Methods Res. 2018 Jan;12(1):55\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlamondon K, Banner D, Cary MA, Faulkner M, Gainforth H, Ghag K, et al. Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study. Health Expect. 2023 Sept 25;27(1):e13865.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSmylie J, Olding M, Ziegler C. Sharing What We Know about Living a Good Life: Indigenous Approaches to Knowledge Translation. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2014;35:16\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEgid BR, Roura M, Aktar B, Amegee Quach J, Chumo I, Dias S, et al. \u0026ldquo;You want to deal with power while riding on power\u0026rdquo;: global perspectives on power in participatory health research and co-production approaches. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Nov;6(11):e006978.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChristopher S, Saha R, Lachapelle P, Jennings D, Colclough Y, Cooper C, et al. Applying indigenous community-based participatory research principles to partnership development in health disparities research. Fam Community Health. 2011;34(3):246\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePlamondon KM. Reimagining Researchers in Health Research Comment on\u0026quot; Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada: A Call to \u0026lsquo;Re-Imagine\u0026rsquo;Research\u0026quot;. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2021;10(2):86.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePowell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implementation Sci. 2015 Dec;10(1):21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDamschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022 Oct 29;17(1):75.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10(1):53.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMunthe-Kaas H, N\u0026oslash;kleby H, Lewin S, Glenton C. The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020 Jan 17;20(1):11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"research-involvement-and-engagement","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"riae","sideBox":"Learn more about [Research Involvement and Engagement](http://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"40900","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40900/3","title":"Research Involvement and Engagement","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Co-production, Integrated Knowledge Translation, Research Partnership, Synthesis, Practices, Processes","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8713739/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8713739/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch coproduction is central to meaningful, equitable knowledge translation, yet partnerships lack practical, actionable guidance for implementation. The Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) Guiding Principles articulate values for partnership but remain difficult to operationalize in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo descriptively synthesize reported research-partnership practices across seven domains and inform the development of actionable guidance that aligns with the IKT Guiding Principles. Scan topic domains include: (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) reporting, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) communication and meetings, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) training and education, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) conflict management, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) co-authorship, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e) agreements, and (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e) collaborative product ownership.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe conducted seven rapid environmental scans. The protocol was co-developed with partners and registered on OSF. MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO were searched and supplemented by targeted reference lists and grey-literature searches. Eligibility required a research partnership between at least one researcher and one research user. Dual verification was used for screening and data extraction. Data were synthesized descriptively; effectiveness was not assessed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the seven scans, the literature reported concrete practices within each domain. Common reporting practices included describing context, governance, roles, and reflexivity. Communication guidance emphasized formal plans/charters, inclusive facilitation, pre-/post-meeting routines, multiple formats, and culturally grounded approaches. Training programs integrated technical skills with relational competencies (trust, reflexivity, cultural humility), co-learning models, mentorship, and experiential methods. Conflict guidance promoted early role/decision clarity, embedded communication norms, routine reflection, and stepwise procedures. Co-authorship practices favored contribution-based models, written agreements, partner inclusion/collective authorship, and capacity-building. Agreements functioned as living documents covering governance, conflict, authorship/IP, data stewardship, and ethical/cultural principles. Ownership was framed as negotiated, co-determined, and procedurally explicit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReported practices cluster into relational processes and structural mechanisms that jointly support equitable collaboration. This synthesis offers a foundational, practice-oriented map to inform future tools and guidance for implementing the IKT Guiding Principles. Future work should test transferability and effectiveness across contexts and examine institutional enablers of sustained partnership.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Identifying Practices for Meaningful Health Research Partnerships: Series of Rapid Environmental Scans","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-09 14:44:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8713739/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-12T18:30:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-09T07:39:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"310802215591563854415701980117576511465","date":"2026-03-17T16:40:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"116315265273003950459423924568839701220","date":"2026-03-17T00:00:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-03T15:58:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"68630162224147528284366747850708602102","date":"2026-02-09T15:51:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-08T03:30:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"199889597669340947639744040473053867327","date":"2026-02-08T02:44:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"300996287315648099856418102046556627658","date":"2026-02-07T18:48:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"273645807892497012522287712735411214448","date":"2026-02-05T13:29:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-04T17:08:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-04T12:27:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Research Involvement and Engagement","date":"2026-02-03T19:49:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"research-involvement-and-engagement","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"riae","sideBox":"Learn more about [Research Involvement and Engagement](http://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"40900","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40900/3","title":"Research Involvement and Engagement","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7e76d9e1-0c4d-4ab5-a68e-2b6ae5284497","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 9th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-12T18:44:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-09 14:44:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8713739","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8713739","identity":"rs-8713739","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}