Project overview

This study used a retrospective longitudinal sequential mixed methods design [28], in which we collected data at different times points between 10 August 2018 and 22 April 2022. Survey data were collected among CDPP members at three measurement points in the year 2018, 2019 and 2021, between 10 August 2018 and 4 November 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we did not collect survey data in the year 2020. Interview data were collected at the end of the study period between 21 November 2021–22 April 2022. This paper reports on survey and interview data related to the implementation and maintenance components of the RE-AIM framework [26]. This paper includes a brief overview of the methods and procedures. Further details are available in the protocol paper [19]. Our original plan was to collect survey and interview data to explore members’ experiences with being part of a network of partnerships (network-level data) and to collect additional survey and interview data to explore members’ experiences with conducting and disseminating a specific research project in partnership (partnership-level data) [19]. However, we modified this plan to avoid overburden of participants. We did not collect the partnership-level survey data and combined experiences on both levels (partnership and network) into one interview session.

We conducted this study using a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism follows an ontological relativist paradigm with a specific emphasis on practical outcomes of the knowledge within a particular context [29]. Within pragmatism, subjective interpretations of experiences (i.e., intersubjectivity) are valued rather than seeking a single objective truth, making a pragmatic approach methodologically coherent with the use of mixed methods [30]. Aligning with our pragmatic approach, this project was conducted by a multidisciplinary expert team, including researchers and trainees with expertise in research partnerships, network function, implementation, knowledge translation, and/or disability and one community partner with expertise in disability, network function and partnerships. Team members were meaningfully engaged at appropriate times based on their interest and capacity [31]. S1 Table provides additional information about the team, including a positionality statement and S2 Table provides additional details on our collaborative research activities. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) of the University of British Columbia – Okanagan campus (Approval Number: H18-00459). All participants provided written consent by reviewing a document that detailed the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Participants in the interview study also provided oral consent prior to the interview session.

The CDPP network

The overarching goal of the CDPP was to enhance the quantity and quality of community participation among Canadians with physical disabilities. The CDPP network was funded by a 7-year Partnership Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The aim of Partnership Grants is to support formal partnerships to promote research, research training and/or KT in the fields of social sciences and humanities.

The CDPP included one leadership team and three teams focused on three different participation domains (mobility, employment, sport/exercise), and a fourth team focused on participation issues that cut across domains. The leadership team included the project director, executive members, content experts, and team leads. The governance structure was established with the aim of promoting open and transparent decision-making and ensuring accountability and effective communication. Additionally, deliberate choices were made in the leadership and management structure to incorporate both academic and non-academic perspectives, fostering shared leadership at all levels. These arrangements were important to ensure a balance of power and influence through shared decision-making, development of community-driven research questions, co-learning, mutual contributions of expertise, co-mentorship of trainees, and co-ownership of the research process and products. To illustrate, each domain team was co-led by an academic and a non-academic who worked together on the development and implementation of their team’s research-related activities and training. Bi-monthly teleconference/ online meetings served as a platform for discussing ongoing projects, emerging issues, and shared challenges. Within this structure, each academic team leader was paired with a research coordinator. The research coordinator’s responsibilities included participating in the teleconferences/meetings, disseminating relevant information (such as newsletters, meeting minutes, and bulletins) to team members via email, and tracking budget allocations and KT efforts for reporting purposes.

Study population

The study population included researchers, trainees and research users (i.e., CDPP members) affiliated with the CDPP network. In the context of CDPP, research users included representatives of community organizations, people with disabilities and their key social influencers (coaches, caregivers), employers, and policy-makers. CDPP members were invited to complete a 10-minute online survey in the years 2018, 2019 and 2021 by a member of the research team (FH, KMG). In 2019, we asked CDPP researchers to forward the survey invitations to their partners (research users). Using purposeful sampling [32], a selection of CDPP members (researchers, trainees, and research users) were invited to participate in an online semi-structured interview session at the end of the study period (2021/2022). We selected potential participants using their 2021 survey responses and their position in the network based on their research domain (employment, mobility or sport and exercise) and their role (researcher, trainee, research user). We invited CDPP members who indicated that they were willing to participate in an interview session about their CDPP experiences.

Data collection

Data analyses

Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify changes in network functioning and satisfaction levels over time. Results of the survey items were reported using medians, ranges, means and standard-deviation. As each year, the group of participants differed due to staff turnovers and graduation of trainees, we did not test for changes over time.

Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim by a research assistant, and checked for accuracy by the interviewer (FH, SL). Names in the transcripts were anonymized. A reflexive thematic analysis approach was taken to analyze the interview data [32,34], using NVivo software. First, co-author (AS) became familiar with the interview data, reviewed the transcripts to identify codes and then constructed initial themes. The coding and construction of initial themes were done by co-author (AS) who did not conduct any of the interviews to minimize the risk that experiences from certain participants would get more attention as interview sessions were conducted by different team members. Second, four co-authors (FH, SL, AS, HG) met to discuss and clarify those initial themes over a 1-hour in-person meeting. After the meeting, AS then further refined, defined, and named a next iteration of themes. The same four co-authors met again for another 1-hour meeting to discuss the refined themes. A draft of refined themes and sample quotes were shared with other co-authors (KMG, CBM, AK, VA) who acted as “critical friends” (i.e., a trusted person who asks challenging questions, another lens, and offers critiques) [35]. Based on their feedback, themes and descriptions were further refined and incorporated into the manuscript. Lastly, the first author (FH) finalized theme names and descriptions based on multiple rounds of feedback from all co-authors. S2 Table provides further details on how themes were developed based on our collaborative research activities and input from co-authors. Quotes from participants were included to illustrate the themes and findings. Pseudonyms were used to enhance readability.

Methodological rigour

Various steps were taken to enhance the quality and methodological rigour of this study. First, themes were constructed through discussions with co-authors with various backgrounds and lived experiences and by using ‘critical friends’ who reflected on data findings. Reflexivity also included a description of the research team including a positionality statement which is available in S1 Table. Second, we meaningfully engaged research users (community partner and network leaders) as partners in the research process to ensure our findings are relevant and meaningful to them (worthy topic). Aligning with our pragmatic approach, we formulated lessons learned for implementing and sustaining networks of partnership in the area of disability research. Third, we used theory and previous literature to interpret and reflect on our findings to enhance the credibility of our findings and achieve meaningful coherence.

Survey

Table 1 presents demographics of participants who completed the annual survey in 2018, 2019 and 2021.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Demographics survey responses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334835.t001

Table 2 provides a summary of the participants’ responses on items about the CDPP network functioning and their satisfaction levels. At all time points, the majority of the participants indicated that the goal of CDPP network is clear (2018: 85%; 2019: 97%; 2021: 76%). More than 70% of the participants indicated that it is easy to work with researchers/research users in the CDPP network (2018: 71%; 2019: 85%; 2021: 70%).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Members’ views on network functioning and satisfaction (implementation).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334835.t002

Participants’ responses towards their satisfaction levels were mixed, but generally positive. To illustrate, the majority of the participants (2018: 85%; 2019: 85%; 2021: 68%) indicated that they were satisfied with the CDPP’s plans for achieving its goals. Similarly, the majority of the participants (2018: 81%; 2019: 88%; 2021: 70%) indicated that they were satisfied with the way the CDPP implemented its plans. S3 Table provides the survey findings disaggregated by participants’ role (researchers, trainees and research users). These disaggregated results illustrate that, on average, research users reported higher satisfaction levels regarding their influence and their role in the CDPP network at all time points compared to researchers and trainees. Research users reported, on average, higher levels of agreement compared to researchers and trainees on the statement “It is easy to work together with community partners/researchers in the CDPP network”.

Survey items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, in which 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neither disagree nor agree, and 7 = strongly agree. The number of participants who responded ‘unsure’ were excluded from these analyses, as we assumed that these participants were unable to comment on the item (for example due to their limited involvement or role in the network). The percentage of participants who responded ‘unsure’ is listed for each item. S3 Table provides aggregated findings by researchers, trainees and research users.

Interviews

A total of 15 participants took part in the interview, of which 11 (73%) identified as women and 4 (27%) as men. The mean age was 43.6 ± 10.2 years old. Regarding the participants’ roles in the CDPP, 4 (27%) participants were trainees, 4 (27%) were researchers, 4 (27%) research users and 3 (20%) participants had both a researcher and research user role in the network. The interview sessions lasted on average 53.7 ± 11.4 minutes.

Overall, interview data illustrated that participants viewed the implementation of the CDPP as successful due to its growth in connections and individual research partnerships over time. A lead researcher of the CDPP said: “I wanted scientists to learn how to do partnered research if they weren’t already doing it and then to implement it and do it. And I see that at the end of the day, we accomplished that”. Participants shared their views on the future of the CDPP network (maintenance) and provided directions to sustain meaningful collaborations and partnerships. Table 3 provides a summary of each theme focusing on the implementation and maintenance of the CDPP.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Overview of the identified themes from the interviews with CDPP members.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334835.t003

Implementation

Maintenance

Transformational leadership and mentorship

A key point of the discussion was the strong leadership and mentorship of CDPP leaders. The importance of strong leadership in complex approaches, such as research partnerships, has been highlighted in previous literature [16,33,36]. In a realist review on mechanisms of knowledge translation of domestic violence research, the authors identified dedicated leadership as one of the mechanisms for the use of research findings in practice [16]. They found that dedicated leadership requires resources in terms of time and money, which aligns with the findings from our study.

The leadership style that our participants described seems to align with transformational leadership theory, which involves leadership behaviours that individually motivate followers to seek challenges and reach their full potential while providing a shared vision for the group [37]. The core tenet of transformational leadership theory is that leaders inspire followers to become leaders in their own right [37]. Participants explained how a CDPP leader, who acted as a ‘role model’ provided mentorship to facilitate the growth of potential future leaders within the network. This finding resonates with the idealized influence (i.e., leaders are ‘role models’) component of transformational leadership [37]. While participants indicated that they did not feel meaningfully connected to the network as a whole, they mentioned that the network leaders implemented a clear and collective vision for the CDPP network. The survey findings also illustrated that CDPP members consistently reported that CDPP goals were clear. These findings align with inspirational motivation (i.e., providing a shared goal and having high expectations). The intellectual stimulation (i.e., encouraging members to think critically and creatively to address problems) component resonates with the fact that leaders shared leadership responsibilities, as participants reported the autonomy to develop their own partnerships and leadership opportunities within the network. Finally, leaders discussed and showed interest in the particular roles that each member played in the three research streams, recognizing the difficulty of partnerships within different scientific contexts. This resonates with the individualized consideration component (i.e., recognizing individual needs and differences). Aligning with our findings, training leaders to use a transformational leadership approach can help to build capacity for research partnerships. Transformational leadership has been suggested previously as a promising and effective style to make system changes and support research partnerships [33].

Identifying and fostering strong leadership and mentorship to build capacity for research partnerships among different groups (researchers, trainees, research users) requires different strategies. For example, strategies focusing on stimulating individuals’ internal motivators may be more effective than focusing on external motivators (e.g., financial compensation). The use of ‘role models’ has been identified previously as an effective strategy to build capacity for research partnerships within and outside the disability research context [38]. Such strategies require different types of resources (human, time, money, training), in which a tailored approach may be needed to best support individual partnerships within the network. Systemically, funding opportunities, such as the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnerships grants, that aim to support networks and partnerships between researchers and research users are needed to continue to build capacity for research partnerships. We encourage funding agencies and organizations from across the world to initiate similar funding opportunities that specifically focus on supporting collaborations between researchers and research users. When establishing new networks and partnerships, we recommend leaders to incorporate transformational leadership behaviours to build capacity for research partnerships among researchers, trainees and research users [33].

Meaningful partnerships vs meaningful network

Participants indicated that they felt meaningfully connected to their own individual partnerships, but not to the whole CDPP network. The question remains whether it matters if participants had meaningful engagement within their partnerships, but did not feel connected to the broader network. The lack of connection to the network could be explained by the fact that leadership and mentorship activities mainly focused on supporting individual partnerships and collaborations within the team areas. Limited formal, organized activities have been undertaken to facilitate network function as a whole and stimulate collaborations between teams. Participants indicated that collaborations between teams was complicated due to differences in partnership development stages and team operations. These findings align with the commonly reported challenges of doing multidisciplinary research in the areas of participation and disability (e.g., communication challenges, different perspectives). While recognizing the value of different perspectives, the three CDPP teams (sport and exercise, mobility, and employment) decided to continue their partnerships on their own after the grant funding ended. By doing so, separate collaborations and partnerships can be fostered and sustained within each research domain and the continued growth of the networks is expected to be more manageable. A more manageable and connected network is expected to be more impactful in terms of the uptake of research findings. In sum, these findings illustrate the importance of considering the stage of partnership development, the feasibility of doing interdisciplinary research, and the continued growth of the network when building new networks and partnerships.

Research partnerships: A principle-driven approach

We described four principles to guide the success of research partnerships based on CDPP members’ experiences. These four key principles (i.e., valuing research partnership, mutual benefit, human connection, and honest and transparent communication) align with guiding principles for research partnerships or research co-production described in previous literature (e.g., [5,6,31,39,40]). The first principle on valuing research partnership resonates with previous literature describing that partners are internally motivated to conduct their research in partnership [23]. Similarly, Burton et al. (2022) [41] identified that taking a values-driven approach (i.e., being motivated and drive by core beliefs and opinions) is a key feature of people who conduct research in partnership. The second principle on mutual benefit or reciprocity is one that has been consistently reported as a guiding principle or value of different types of research partnership approaches in different areas [5,6,31,39,40]. The principle on human connection or relationship building has been considered as the foundation of research partnerships [33,41]. This relational aspect of working in partnership is also an important category for perceived facilitators (e.g., trust, communication) and barriers (e.g., conflict, feeling of dissatisfaction) to conducting and dissemination research in partnerships [21]. Previous literature [20] indicated the need for building capacity in relational skills, including effective communication, to promote research partnership approaches, which aligns with the last principle on honest communication. Our findings, again, highlight the principled approach of research partnerships as the guide for success. The fact that participants were able to talk about these key partnership principles may reflect their experiences and knowledge on partnered research reflecting the successful implementation of the network in terms of promoting and supporting research partnerships.

Implications and lessons learned

To our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study reporting on the implementation and maintenance of large, multidisciplinary network of partnerships in the area of participation and disability. This study adds to the existing disability literature, by providing an example of how a network of researchers, trainees and research users can be implemented and sustained to promote research partnerships, and ultimately, enhance the uptake of research findings. To illustrate the impact of the CDPP network, over 100 knowledge mobilization resources and products have been published and are available on the CDPP website (www.cdpp.ca), spanning the domains of employment, mobility, and expertise and sport. These resources include blueprints, toolkits, and guides that provide accessible, evidence-informed information for a broad range of audiences. For example, the Blueprint for Building Quality Participation in Sport for Children, Youth, and Adults with a Disability has been widely used by organizations such as the Canadian Paralympic Committee (CPC) to inform inclusive sport programming. CDPP research has also contributed to increased attention on creating effective, equitable, and inclusive workplaces for all individuals, including those with disabilities, by providing employers and organizations with resources to promote inclusive workplaces. The value and continued relevance of CDPP’s research in exercise and sport is further demonstrated by the establishment of the CDPP 2.0 network, which includes 29 community partners who continue to benefit from and contribute to this work.

This study adds to the existing partnership literature by providing longitudinal data on members’ views on network functioning. While we provide a first step in measuring network function over time, more research is needed to develop reliable and validated methods and approaches to longitudinally monitor and evaluate the impact of a network of research partnerships without overburden participants.

Based on our findings and experiences, we identified three key lessons learned for building and sustaining a multidisciplinary network of research partnerships in the area of participation and disability:

1. 1). Foster transformational leadership behaviours to build capacity for principle-based research partnerships among researchers, trainees and research users. This includes mentoring and training early-career researchers, trainees and research users in becoming transformational leaders in research partnerships. Mentoring and training the future generation is needed to successfully sustain the network and its partnerships over time, and has become a key component of the CDPP 2.0 network.
2. 2). When establishing a multidisciplinary network, consider the stage of partnership development, the feasibility of doing multidisciplinary research, and the potential growth of the network over time. For example, the CDPP decided to move forward as three separate networks. Continuing with networks within the same research domain may help members to feel connected to both the network and their partnerships.
3. 3). Formulate shared principles or values to guide collaborations and partnerships within the network. For example, the IKT Guiding Principles have been developed to support conducting and disseminating spinal cord injury research in partnerships [31]. These principles will also be used to guide and evaluate future partnerships in the CDPP 2.0 network.

Limitations

This study has some limitations to report. First, the survey responses included only a few responses from research users’ perspectives. As such, the disaggregated findings reported in S3 Table should be interpreted with caution. Further, due to COVID-19 we did not collect survey-data in the year 2020. However, we were still able to yield results over 3 years and captured a unique longitudinal dataset. Second, we have limited information about participants’ demographics (e.g., gender, ethnicity). Therefore, we cannot comment on the diversity of our sample, which limits our understanding of the context of our participants’ responses. Future studies are encouraged to collect this demographic and background information. Furthermore, the interview data indicated that, in general, participants were very positive about their collaborations and research partnerships. It is possible that CDPP members with positive partnership experiences were more likely to participate in our study compared to those with more negative experiences. As such, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, interviews were conducted by three different interviewers and then analyzed by a fourth researcher. The change in researchers may have impacted the analyses; however, steps to ensure qualitative rigour were enacted (e.g., critical friends). Another limitation is the limited depth of data collected at the individual project level, as interviews focused on both network-level and project-level experiences and were conducted at a single time point. While participants shared valuable insights into their CDPP projects and partnerships, this design limited our ability to conduct the planned longitudinal multiple case analysis. Future follow-up interviews could be conducted within the context of CDPP 2.0 to enhance our understanding of how project-level partnerships are sustained over time. Finally, we reported on participants’ views and experiences regarding the implementation and sustainability of the network and their partnerships, which targets only two components of the RE-AIM framework. Future studies are needed to identify the extent to which a network of partnerships can contribute to improving translation of research findings (i.e., reach and effectiveness).