ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Knowledge user perspectives on integrated knowledge translation (iKT) in health interventions research for people with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative descriptive study.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated knowledge translation (iKT) represents an approach to optimizing health interventions research through active collaboration between researchers and knowledge users throughout the research process. To date, few studies have explored the process of engaging in iKT, particularly in the context of multiple sclerosis (MS) research. Building on a larger iKT-informed study exploring mindfulness-based interventions for people living with MS, this study explores the perspectives of iKT panellists and extended collaborators on the use of iKT in health research.
methodsThis qualitative descriptive study utilized one-on-one semi-structured interviews conducted using Zoom or Microsoft Teams. Interviews were 20-30 min in duration. An interview guide informed by the Ontario Brain Institute's framework for patient engagement across the stages of research was used. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.
resultsA total of eight iKT partners were interviewed, five were members of the iKT panel and three were extended collaborators. Five themes on the use of iKT in health interventions research on MS were identified: (1) defining iKT, (2) motivation and meaningful participation in iKT, (3) the importance of networking in iKT, (4) balancing multiple perspectives, and (5) barriers and facilitators to engaging in iKT. Within these themes, interviewees highlighted the need for further definition and operationalization of concepts. Discussion on the representativeness of iKT partners and recruitment of 'hard to reach' knowledge users was also salient.
conclusionThe findings from this study provide useful considerations for other teams using an iKT approach. Future research directions include finding/maximizing meaningful ways for knowledge users to participate, exploring ways in which knowledge users could lead/co-lead (rather than consult on) research activities, and examining the potential role of an iKT facilitator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.