Common Partnership Indicators

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT BACKGROUND

Context of instrument development/use
The article describes a study to “examine research receptor capacity and research utilization needs within the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC).” The study explored the “abilities of Ministry staff to find, understand and use evidence-based research in policy development processes.” The Health System-Linked Research Unit (HSLRU) engaged with Ontario Ministry partners to develop research directly intended for transfer into government decision-making, supported the development of these three instruments. The instruments reflect both processes and outcomes that can be used to “manage collaborative knowledge generation or assess the performance of a partnership between health researchers and policymakers.” The study led to the development of a set of three instruments: the Common Partnership Indicators (discussed here), as well as the Early Partnership Indicators and the Mature Partnership Indicators (discussed in other assessment instrument summaries).²​

Instrument description/purpose
The Common Partnership Indicators can be used by partnership members as a self-evaluation tool, with the aim of improving partnership functioning. The instrument focuses on three areas:

• Communication is clear, relevant, timely, and respectful
• Collaboration occurs “at most stages of research,” and “to discuss research dissemination and utilization plans”
• Dissemination of research includes “multiple formats of written and/or other forms of presentation;” presentation formats are “in layman’s terms,” “include recommendations for action,” and are concise where appropriate; and “community stakeholders contacted researcher or government partner to discuss research findings”

The Common Partnership Indicators has 33 questions. The possible response options to the questions were not presented in the article.²

The Common Partnership Indicators can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.16.

Engagement involved in developing, implementing, or evaluating the assessment instrument
The Common Partnership Indicators was developed using a cross-sectional survey followed by qualitative interviews. The article noted the importance of “[improving] access to research information, [enhancing] use of the information once accessed, and [promoting] an organizational culture supportive of research utilization.” Study participants involved in developing and validating the instruments included “all eight of Ontario’s HSLRUs and their designated partners at the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.” Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with eight Research Unit directors (or their designee) and their eight Ministry partners. Using the interview findings and findings from a literature review, the instruments were drafted and then tested with focus groups of HSLRU participants and one Ministry partner (the majority of whom also participated in the interviews) to examine “clarity, feasibility, credibility, relevance, level of specificity, and their ability to support each evaluation question.”²

Additional information on populations engaged in instrument use
The study participants – HSLRU researchers and Ministry partners – conduct health research in a wide range of areas with policy implications, including “community health, cancer, dental health, rehabilitation, child health, arthritis, mental health, health information.” The partnerships often involved multiple projects and included engagement with community, government, and research partners, depending on the content area. Project activities were also wide-ranging and “included literature reviews, surveys, programme and service evaluation, costing estimates for policy initiatives, policy analysis, health system human resource analysis, intervention studies, knowledge dissemination to government and community, and knowledge transfer studies.”²

Notes

• Potential limitations: The Common Partnership Indicators, as well as the Mature Partnership Indicators and the Early Partnership Indicators (discussed in other assessment instrument summaries), support improved understanding of knowledge translation partnerships, providing opportunities to measure success at each stage of partnership development. The authors maintain that the results of this study are applicable beyond the partners who tested the instruments, especially given the broad range of research content and type conducted. Importantly, the dimension of communication for the Common Partnership Indicators “emerged unanimously as an important factor related to the success of a partnership.” Of note, a new partnership may be “unfairly judged if measured against, for example, the ideal standards of effective, informal communication channels that develop with more mature partnerships.” When considering the maturity of partnerships, the length of time working as partners may influence the characteristics displayed or exhibited among partners. In addition to the Common Partnership Indicators, Early Partnership Indicators, and Mature Partnership Indicators being used to evaluate relationships, they could also be used to monitor partnership processes and guide a set of deliverables that could be included in negotiated agreements.²
• Future research needed: Future prospective studies could provide evidence on the applicability of the instrument in practice. Other future studies using the Common Partnership Indicators “might focus on prioritizing them, determining optimal frequency of measurement, usefulness in modifying the partnership midway through the partnership, or determining the extent to which they predict the use of research by policymakers. Alternatively, one might study which [measures] are better suited for partnerships with bureaucrats, and which are better for collaborations with elected officials. Validation and reliability work would be required to optimize issues of reliability, validity, and generalizability. Such a study would also want to consider whether there are instances in which the [measures] may obstruct the partnership.” Another area for further study would be the maturation of such partnerships, with considerations for the time frames needed to show a shift in early versus mature partnerships.