Table 4.
Results of six open-ended questions on a team survey about experience with an integrated knowledge translation approach (n=25)
| Question | Response |
| 1. What do you perceive as the benefits of an integrated KT approach to develop a reporting guideline extension of CONSORT for equity? | 1. Allows consideration and inclusion of a range of views (14/25, 56%): “Capturing a multitude of perspectives, to enhance relevance and acceptability of reporting guidelines across disciplines.” 2. Fosters engagement in study processes (6/25, 24%): “It allows participation and engagement of various stakeholders at all stages of the project for whom the guideline is relevant.” 3. Enhances guideline uptake (5/25, 20%): “Results are more likely to be adopted and applied.” |
| 2. Do you think that the team faced any challenges in the study as the result of the integrated KT approach? | 1. The logistics of including a range of people in the team (8/25, 32%): “Takes more time to work with a large and diverse crowd.” 2. Management of views (5/25, 20%): “Because of the wide range of different disciplines present, it may have been difficult to engage all participants equally across all issues.” 3. Reconciliation of within-team differences (3/25, 12%): “It is difficult to deal with perhaps conflicting and at times unclear opinions.” 4. Unaware of any team challenges (9/25, 36%): “Not that I’m aware of.” |
| 3. Did you face any challenges in the study as the result of the integrated KT approach? | 1. No personal challenges faced in the study (19/25, 76%): “I did not face any challenges. My input and participation had equal standing in the process.” 2. The personal experience of challenge related to the pace, number of consultations and/or to provide informed opinions (6/25, 24%): “It was slow at times and a bit frustrating. We achieved what we did through patience, persistence and good will of team members.” |
| 4. What do you consider to be the impact(s) of using an integrated KT approach with the study? | 1. Improves the final guideline product (11/25, 44%): “I feel that we produced a product that was relevant to all of our team members, and that they can support in their communities.” 2. Inclusion of different forms of knowledge (11/25, 44%): “It ensures that the study is better informed by the expertise, perspectives and needs of the different stakeholders.” 3. Unsure/did not notice impact of integrated KT approach (3/25, 12%): “Not sure.” |
| 5. Would you have changed anything about how the integrated KT approach was used in the study? If yes, how? | 1. Would not change the use of the integrated KT approach (8/15, 53%): “No change suggested.” 2. Greater range of participants (3/15, 20%): “I would have tried to broaden the scope of stakeholders.” 3. Narrow the stakeholder focus and seek more intense consultations, such as through inperson meetings (2/15, 13%): “Smaller reach, deeper consultation.” 4. More time (2/15, 13%): “More time is always a benefit to measure the impact.” |
| 6. Do you have any additional comments? | 1. No comment (19/25, 76%). 2. Indicated that it was a positive experience (6/25, 24%): “I would do this again.” |
CONSORT, CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials; KT, knowledge translation.