Table 4.

TIDieR intervention checklist

Author, year, country	Description of intervention	Rationale, theory or goal of intervention	Physical materials or informational materials used	Procedures/activities/processes used	Modes of delivery	Influencing factors and tailoring or modifications	Evaluation undertaken and assessment of outcome	Applicability, generalisability or external validity
Batchelor 2013	Workshop to review results of a prioritization exercise and to develop research questions based on prioritized uncertainties	Rationale – within a priority setting partnership, to use open engagement to discuss and to generate research questions by consensus	Summary information to provide contextual information about the topic	Workshop with different stakeholder groups Independently facilitated	Face-to-face Group Location unclear	Workshop had been modified from James Lind Alliance, Priority Setting Partnerships to include generation of research questions	No evaluation	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Clarke 2019	Use of a co-production approach within research projects	Theory – ritual theory [1] and the Interaction Ritual Chain concept [2], to explain how inclusivity is established and maintained, as a key element of co-production	None reported	Project management group meetings at four project sites	Face-to-face Group Locations in three UK universities and local health and care providers	Projects selected on their ‘explicit use of co-production’	Ethnographic data were collected from observation, informal and semi-structured interviews Everyday rituals and routines were observed to generate and sustain inclusivity	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Cooke 2015	Collaborative priority setting in a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC)	Rationale – use of priority setting to build capacity and collaboration with stakeholders. Three strategies were described	Refreshments at meetings and workshops	a) Trusted historical relationships	a) Not described	None described	Qualitative semi-structured interviews, workshop, and documentary analysis Formal methods of consensus of co-production workshops were reported to have led to joint grant capture	Replicable as a whole approach across other organisations with resources similar to CLAHRCs
				b) Platforms for negotiation and planning	b) Special interest, steering and advisory groups
				c) Formal methods of consensus	c) Delphi and Nominal Group Technique. Co-production workshops
Gerrish 2014	Academic and clinical nurses were seconded into knowledge translation teams within a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC)	Rational – to enhance knowledge translation (KT) expertise in KT teams and to provide capacity development opportunities to benefit CLAHRC partners	None reported	Not reported	Face-to-face, individually and in groups	None described	Pluralistic evaluation Focus groups, discussion groups and semi-structured interviews in two phases Secondees reported to have facilitated change in practice	Replicable in organisations with existing knowledge translation/mobilisation teams
Gillard 2012	Involvement of service users and carers in qualitative data analysis	Goal – to reflect on the extent to which knowledge was co-produced	Research data from semi structured qualitative interviews	Preliminary analysis, development and application of analytical framework, stakeholder conferences, asking questions of the qualitative data, writing up	Face-to-face in groups	None described	No evaluation	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Guell 2017,	Stakeholder forum held on one occasion	Goal – to discuss relevant research evidence and observe knowledge exchange	Market stalls set up with over 20 publications to engage with	Market place format followed by a formal plenary session	Face-to-face, individually and in groups	None described	Ethnographic observation and semi-structured interviews Generated knowledge on how to communicate	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Hutten 2015	Consensus workshops with range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise service improvement ideas	Goal – to demonstrate a method of generating and agreeing on service improvement priorities	Detailed briefing pack sent before the event Electronic voting technology	Short presentations, a question-and-answer session and process of voting on own individual priorities	Face-to-face in a group	None described	No evaluation	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Knowles 2021	Participatory co-design workshops with patients and service users for service design	Rationale – that if authentic involvement was achieved this would lead to knowledge sharing	None reported but activities described suggest drawing materials	Ten co-design participatory workshops	Face-to-face in a group	None described	Collective in-action analysis, survey, focus group and field notes Learning generated on co-design process	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Redwood 2016	Collaborative partnership between National Health Service partners, the city council and two universities	Theory – communities of practice theory (3) and a theory of change model developed to explain intervention	None reported	Collaborative stakeholder meetings for each micro-level team (Health Integration Team)	Face-to-face in groups	Influencing factors on organisational collaborative partnerships as a mechanism of knowledge sharing outlined through a theory of change	Document analysis and stakeholder semi-structured interviews	Difficult to replicate in areas without similar infrastructure and partnerships
Shipman 2008	Consultation meetings to clarify and prioritise research themes	Goal – to identify major concerns of national and local importance in the provision, commissioning, research and use of generalist end of life care	None reported	Consultation meetings held as part of a Nominal Group Technique, for participants to discuss and clarify and prioritise research themes,	Face-to-face in groups	Method of Nominal Group Technique was modified to generate ideas before the meeting and to allow those unable to attend to participate via email or telephone	No evaluation	Replicable across other groups and topic areas
Smith 2015	Organisational collaborative partnership between universities and health care organisations within a health care system	Theory – three theoretical lenses were used to explain the partnership working, the co-productionist idiom [4], interactionist currents within organisation studies [5, 6] and communication, argumentation and critique from a pragmatic perspective [7, 8], [9]	Formal project documents (boundary objects)	Project management group meetings and the use/negotiation around documentation	Face-to-face in groups	Study revealed the involvement of other organisations outside of the formal partnership	Observation, document analysis and postal questionnaire Identified how collaboration was being maintained by maintenance of boundaries rather than ‘blurring’ of them	Difficult to replicate in areas without similar infrastructure and partnerships
Van der Graaf 2019, United Kingdom	Knowledge brokering service between academics and health practitioners	Theory – use of ‘dramaturgical lens’ and ‘front and backstage’ in partnerships to explain knowledge brokering process [10]	None reported	Knowledge broker interactions with research requests from 150 + health, or social care sector representatives	Face-to-face, email and one-to-one conversations	None described	Auto-ethnographic evaluation of conversations from summary notes and emails Identified challenges and how these could be overcome by similar services	Difficult to replicate in areas without similar infrastructure and partnerships
Vindrola-Padros 2019, United Kingdom	The ‘researcher-in residence’ embedded model,	Rational – researchers in residence will negotiate the meaning and use of research and co-produce local context sensitive knowledge	None reported	Three aspects: (1) building relationships, (2) defining and adapting the scope of the projects and (3) maintaining academic professional identity	Face-to-face, individually and in groups	None described	No evaluation	Three case studies given, which aids replicability across other groups and topic areas
Waterman 2015, United Kingdom	Knowledge transfer associates, responsible for the facilitation of the implementation of evidence-based health care	Theory/framework—PARIHS model emphasising the facilitative function, and the use of a knowledge brokering framework [11, 12]	None reported	Knowledge transfer associates as part of a team responsible for implementing evidence-based health care	Face-to-face in groups	Knowledge transfer associate with a different theoretical underpinning perspective to a knowledge broker	Analysis of co-operative enquiry meetings and reflective diaries Identified factors that could support similar initiatives	Some potential to replicate model in organisations using evidence-based health care projects or equivalent
Wright 2013, United Kingdom	Referred to as knowledge brokers but described as embedded researchers within clinical teams (with a clinical professional backgrounds)	Rationale – that these allied health professionals would bridge the gap identified between research and practice through boundary spanning roles	None reported	Literature searches/reviews, empirical data collection and implementation of projects or processes with evaluation of outcome	Face-to-face, individually and in groups	None described	In-depth interviews, report and reflective diaries Identified increase in research skills in individuals, piloting of research findings in practice but no impact on colleagues	Replicable across other groups and topic areas