Mature 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), which had experience engaging with Ministry partners and developing research directly intended for transfer into government decision-making, supported the development of 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 the Mature Partnership Indicators (discussed here), as well as the Early Partnership Indicators and the Common Partnership Indicators (discussed in other assessment instrument summaries), which use quantitative and qualitative approaches.²

Instrument description/purpose
The Mature Partnership Indicators instrument focuses on the three areas of:

• “Meeting information needs [including] partners are flexible about meeting partner’s changing needs and revising research plans and timelines; partners understand the limits of each other’s flexibility; [and] partners understand research findings, their limits and their implications for Ministry work”
• “Level of rapport [including] conflict is dealt with openly, informally, and promptly; trust…, comfort…, and openness has increased between partners; partners begin speaking a common language regarding research [and] facilitate removal of barriers for each other’s work; [and] linkage with partner enhances partner linkage with community/other stakeholders”
• “Commitment [including] joint commitment to the research project, an increase in joint activity around the project, partners are perceived as experts in the research/policy area and are referred to as such to others, [and] an informal or formal infrastructure exists for linking and transferring research between partners”

The Mature Partnership Indicators has 30 questions. The possible response options to the questions were not presented in the article.²

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

Engagement involved in developing, implementing, or evaluating the assessment instrument
The Mature Partnership Indicators were developed using a cross-sectional survey followed next by qualitative interviews, which provided “detailed recommendations to improve access to research information, enhance use of the information once accessed, and promote 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 were 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

• Important findings:
  • The Mature Partnership Indicators, as well as the Early Partnership Indicators and the Common Partnership Indicators (discussed in other assessment instrument summaries), support an 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 of research conducted by the study participants. 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.”²
  • The authors indicate that participants identified the Level of Rapport (one of the three dimensions in the Mature Partnership Indicators instrument) as a critical dimension of partnerships. It was “associated with a number of possible indicators revolving around conflict, trust, comfort, openness, and common language between partners. Rapport was also linked to the removal of barriers for each other’s work (e.g., easing the way for appropriate communication of research results).”²
  • The article indicated that where partnerships were successful “participants reported an acknowledgement of each other’s needs, time lines, and limits of each other’s flexibility.” Participants also reported “mutual understanding of the implications of the research results for each other’s worlds.” Additionally, 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: “A future prospective pilot study could help generate evidence on the applicability of the tool in practice. Other future studies using these 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 indicators 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 indicators may obstruct the partnership.” Another area for future study would be the maturation of such partnerships, with considerations for the time frames needed to show a shift in early versus mature partnerships.²