Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2025
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Unique and shared partner priorities for supporting engagement in knowledge mobilization in pediatric pain: a
Nicole E MacKenzie1,2, Christine T Chambers3,4,5, Deborah A Marshall6
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Life Sciences Centre, 1355 Oxford St, Halifax, NS, B3H 4J1, Canada. nmackenzie@dal.ca.
Insights
Effective partnerships in children's health knowledge mobilization (KM) require prioritizing relationships. Different groups value aspects like team connection and communication flexibility differently for successful KM activities.
Area of Science:
- Health Services Research
- Knowledge Mobilization
- Paediatric Health
Background:
- Effective knowledge mobilization (KM) in paediatric pain and children's health relies on strong partnerships.
- Limited guidance exists on fostering successful partnerships across diverse stakeholder groups in KM.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine the preferences and priorities of health professionals, researchers, and patient/caregiver partners.
- To understand factors supporting engagement in knowledge mobilization (KM) activities within paediatric pain and children's health.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment, a stated preferences method.
- Assessed priorities and relative importance of factors supporting engagement in KM activities.
- Compared partner group priorities using difference scores and ratio values.
Main Results:
- All partner groups prioritized team relationships as most important for KM engagement.
- Pragmatic factors for executing KM were ranked as least important across groups.
- Researchers prioritized clinical fit, while patient/caregivers valued flexible communication.
Conclusions:
- Strong relationships are crucial for successful knowledge mobilization (KM) engagement in paediatric health.
- Understanding nuanced partner preferences for relationship aspects is key for effective collaboration.
- Leaders should discuss relationship dynamics and practicalities to ensure impactful KM initiatives.
Background:
Engaging in partnerships is key to the success of knowledge mobilization (KM) activities; however, how best to engage partners in KM activities in the context of paediatric pain and children's health more broadly is not well understood. There is limited guidance on what supports the development of effective partnerships in KM activities with a variety of partner types. The purpose of this study was to examine the preferences and priorities of three partner groups (i.e. health professionals, researchers and patient/caregiver partners) when it comes to supporting their engagement in KM activities within paediatric pain and children's health.
Methods:
We used a case 1 (object case) best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment, a stated preferences method to assess priorities and relative importance of factors related to supporting engagement in KM activities and compare their importance across the three partner groups. Participants completed 12 tasks requiring them to select items that were most and least important to supporting their engagement in KM activities. A total of 11 items, generated through a previous elicitation task, were included in the balanced incomplete block experimental design for the BWS. Difference scores and ratio values were calculated for each group and relative comparisons were observed across groups.
Results:
A total of 127 participants completed the BWS experiment. All partner groups agreed that items related to relationships within teams were among the most important, while pragmatic items related to executing KM were amongst the least important. While there was relative similarity in the items ranked as important, varying priorities also emerged for each group; fit of KM activities in the clinical context was particularly important among researchers, while flexible communication was relatively more important within the patient/caregiver group. Health professionals differed the least from the other groups.
Conclusions:
Different partner groups prioritized strong relationships when it comes to supporting engagement in KM activities, reinforcing the importance of connections in KM processes. There was nuance, however, around how partner groups valued various aspects of relationships. Individuals leading KM initiatives in paediatric pain and children's health should discuss relationships and pragmatics with partners to ensure successful collaboration and impactful activities.
