Background Research funders in Canada and abroad have made substantial investments in supporting collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge as it is believed to increase knowledge use. Canadian health research funders have advocated for the use of integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health research, however, there is limited research around how IKT compares to other collaborative research approaches. Our objective was to better understand how IKT compares with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research by identifying the differences and similarities among them in order to provide conceptual clarity and reduce researcher and knowledge user confusion about these common approaches. Methods We employed a qualitative descriptive method using interview data to better understand experts’ perspectives and experiences on collaborative research approaches. Participants’ responses were analysed through thematic analysis to elicit core themes. The analysis was centred around the concept of IKT, as it is the most recent approach; IKT was then compared and contrasted with engaged scholarship, Mode 2 research, co-production and participatory research. As this was an iterative process, data triangulation and member-checking were conducted with participants to ensure accuracy of the emergent themes and analysis process. Results Differences were noted in the orientation (i.e. original purpose), historical roots (i.e. disciplinary origin) and partnership/engagement (i.e. role of partners etc.). Similarities among the approaches included (1) true partnerships rather than simple engagement, (2) focus on essential components and processes rather than labels, (3) collaborative research orientations rather than research methods, (4) core values and principles, and (5) extensive time and financial investment. Core values and principles among the approaches included co-creation, reciprocity, trust, fostering relationships, respect, co-learning, active participation, and shared decision-making in the generation and application of knowledge. All approaches require extensive time and financial investment to develop and maintain true partnerships. Conclusions This qualitative study is the first to systematically synthesise experts’ perspectives and experiences in a comparison of collaborative research approaches. This work contributes to developing a shared understanding of collaborative research approaches to facilitate conceptual clarity in use, reporting, indexing and communication among researchers, trainees, knowledge users and stakeholders to advance IKT and implementation science.

Plain English summaryPatient engagement (or patient and public involvement) in health research is becoming a requirement for many health research funders, yet many researchers have little or no experience in engaging patients as partners as opposed to research subjects. Additionally, many patients have no experience providing input on the research design or acting as a decision-making partner on a research team. Several potential risks exist when patient engagement is done poorly, despite best intentions. Some of these risks are that: (1) patients’ involvement is merely tokenism (patients are involved but their suggestions have little influence on how research is conducted); (2) engaged patients do not represent the diversity of people affected by the research; and, (3) research outcomes lack relevance to patients’ lives and experiences.Qualitative health research (the collection and systematic analysis of non-quantitative data about peoples’ experiences of health or illness and the healthcare system) offers several approaches that can help to mitigate these risks. Several qualitative health research methods, when done well, can help research teams to: (1) accurately incorporate patients’ perspectives and experiences into the design and conduct of research; (2) engage diverse patient perspectives; and, (3) treat patients as equal and ongoing partners on the research team.This commentary presents several established qualitative health research methods that are relevant to patient engagement in research. The hope is that this paper will inspire readers to seek more information about qualitative health research, and consider how its established methods may help improve the quality and ethical conduct of patient engagement for health research.Abstract Background Research funders in several countries have posited a new vision for research that involves patients and the public as co-applicants for the funding, and as collaborative partners in decision-making at various stages and/or throughout the research process. Patient engagement (or patient and public involvement) in health research is presented as a more democratic approach that leads to research that is relevant to the lives of the people affected by its outcomes. What is missing from the recent proliferation of resources and publications detailing the practical aspects of patient engagement is a recognition of how existing research methods can inform patient engagement initiatives. Qualitative health research, for example, has established methods of collecting and analyzing non-quantitative data about individuals’ and communities’ lived experiences with health, illness and/or the healthcare system. Included in the paradigm of qualitative health research is participatory health research, which offers approaches to partnering with individuals and communities to design and conduct research that addresses their needs and priorities. Discussion The purpose of this commentary is to explore how qualitative health research methods can inform and support meaningful engag...

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE Harassment and abuse in the workplace of family physicians has been associated with higher levels of stress, increased consumption of alcohol, and higher risk for developing mental health problems. Few studies have examined issues contributing to abusive encounters in the workplace of family physicians. METHODSFor the overall study we used a mixed methods design, which included a cross-sectional survey of a randomly selected sample of active family physicians from the database of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and telephone interviews with those who reported experiencing work related harassment and abuse in the last year. The data presented here arise from the qualitative interviews of the study, which were analyzed thematically. RESULTSThe interview arm of the study included 23 female and 14 male participants. The major themes that emerged from the study were (1) modeling of abusive behaviors, (2) status hierarchy among various medical disciplines, (3) shortage of physicians, and (4) lack of transparent policies and follow-up procedures after abusive encounters. The results are discussed using the broken window theory.CONCLUSION Many family physicians experience harassing and abusive encounters during their training or in the workplace. The current medical culture appears to contribute to harassment and abuse in the workplace of family physicians in Canada. We described the components that intentionally or unintentionally facilitate abusive behavior in the medical culture. Ann Fam Med 2012;10:111-117. doi:10.1370/afm.1341. INTRODUCTIONH ealth care workers are at greater risk of workplace abuse than most other workers, with the exception of law enforcement officers and taxi drivers.1 Among health care professionals, nurses and family physicians are at greatest risk for being abused. [2][3][4][5][6] Research conducted in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States has found that in their work, physicians experience many forms of harassment and abuse, 1 including verbal abuse, intimidation, sexual harassment, stalking, and assault from both patients and colleagues.7-10 An Australian study reported that 64% of general practitioners reported abuse in the previous year, with low-level mistreatment, such as verbal abuse, being the most common. More than 10% reported experiences of sexual harassment and physical abuse. 7 Similar trends have been found in such other countries as New Zealand and Canada. 8,11 Research conducted in Canada, carried out by our research team, reported that 98% of family physicians reported having experienced at least 1 minor abusive event (eg, humiliation), 75% reported having experienced a major event (eg, sexual harassment), and 39% had experienced a severe event (eg, assault) during their career as a physician.9 Twenty-nine percent of the polled physicians reported having been abused in the previous month by either a patient or family member of a patient. A small group reported having been abused by colleagues (9%) and coworkers (6%) in the prev...