Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids

AbstractBackground: We know little about knowledge users’ involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members’ degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids. Methods: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from “Screen titles/abstracts” to “Provide feedback on draft article.” After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation. Results: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n=3(15%) to n=20(100%). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having used a process that was authentic and incorporated diverse perspectives, and they perceived it resulted in better and more relevant output. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group. Conclusion: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce a systematic review.