BackgroundIntegrated knowledge translation describes the process of partnered research between different stakeholders with the goal of producing research that ultimately achieves a greater impact when put into practice. A better understanding of research partnerships and integrated knowledge translation has implications for future partnerships and collaborative initiatives in practice. Our research describes and expands upon previous work done to identify barriers and attitudes toward collaboration in the context of research funding opportunities that required researcher–knowledge-user partnerships.MethodsA survey was sent out to researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and knowledge-users who worked collaboratively on their research projects. There were two mirror versions of the survey, one for researchers and one for knowledge-users. Descriptive statistics, χ2 analysis and Mann–Whitney U analysis were used to understand the processes, barriers, perceived impact and sustainability of the partnerships.ResultsThe results revealed that, although there were differences in the roles of researchers and knowledge-users, both groups felt very positive towards their partnerships. Some of the barriers identified as inhibiting effective partnerships were resource constraints (funding/time) and differences in contribution and involvement amongst team members. Despite these barriers, both researchers and knowledge-users felt that the partnership was not only sustainable, but also helped create an impact.ConclusionsOur results provide useful information for funding agencies launching opportunities requiring or encouraging collaborative research projects between researchers and knowledge-users.

Teamwork among health care professionals has been found to improve patient outcomes and reduce burnout. Surveys from individual team members are often used to measure the effectiveness of teamwork performance, as they provide an efficient way to capture various constructs of teamwork. This allows evaluators to better understand team functioning, areas of strength, and to identify potential areas for improvement. However, the majority of published surveys are yet to be validated. We conducted a review of psychometric evidence to identify instruments frequently used in practice and identified in the literature. The databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant articles, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria for full assessment. Seven surveys were validated and most frequently identified in the literature. This review aims to facilitate the selection of instruments that are most appropriate for research and clinical practice. More research is required to develop surveys that better reflect the current reality of teamwork in our evolving health system, including a greater consideration for patient as team members. Additionally, more research is needed to encompass an increasing development of team assessment tools.

Given the shift in current healthcare trends toward digitization of storing information, there has been an increase in the number of studies using administrative databases. These databases provide a powerful tool to conduct research on outcomes, health services, and epidemiology. However, these databases have limitations and biases that should be considered. Given the sensitive information regarding patients’ health in the database, security clearances must be granted before data is accessed. Furthermore, algorithms to link the different variables to create a cohort of people with specific disease are imperfect and may not yield an accurate representation. Due to a large volume of records, a statistically significant finding may be observed, but may provide insignificant clinical results. Despite the current limitations, administrative databases provide powerful data that researchers can use to identify gaps in performance to improve the healthcare system.