International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Funding Programs Relevant to Spinal Cord Injury Research and Their Approaches to Research Partnerships: An Environmental Scan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Zhiyang Shi 1
Alanna Shwed 2
Ian D. Graham 3
Gayle Scarrow 4
Peter Athanasopoulos 5
Vanessa K. Noonan 6
John Chernesky 6
Kathryn M. Sibley 7
SCI IKT Guiding Principles Partnership Panel 8
Heather L. Gainforth 1
1 Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
2 School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada
3 School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
4 Michael Smith Health Research BC, Vancouver, BC, Canada
5 Spinal Cord Injury Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
6 Praxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
7 Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
8 #A full list of the investigators of the IKT Guiding Principles Partnership Panel is provided at the end of the article
10.34172/ijhpm.8813
Abstract
Background 
Establishing research partnerships can help close the research-practice gap. The Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles were developed in a spinal cord injury research context as a resource to facilitate research partnerships. Research funders play a significant role in the spinal cord injury research system. However, how funders
define, require, evaluate, support research partnerships is rarely reported. This study identified spinal cord injury research funders in Canada and the United States, identified their approaches to supporting research partnerships, and explored organizational perspectives of principles of partnership.
 

Methods 
An environmental scan was conducted through five steps: (1) identifying spinal cord injury research organizations that funded the greatest number of spinal cord injury research publications in Canada and the United States between 2017 and 2022; (2) identifying one funding program related to research partnerships of each funder; (3 extracting online information of the programs; (4) interviewing funder informants; and (5) descriptive and deductive content analysis. The five steps were completed between April 2022 and September 2024. An additional data collection was conducted in July 2025 on a relevant National Institutes of Health funding program.

Results 
Sixteen organizations and seventeen partnership-supportive programs were identified. Six programs defined partnerships as researchers and research users engaging throughout the research process. Eleven programs required applicants to describe the partnership in applications and explicitly stated their peer review evaluation criteria. The programs supported research partnerships through remuneration for partners’ engagement (n = 6), facilitating connections between researchers and potential partners (n = 3), and helping applicants prepare applications (n = 4). The programs had few strategies to evaluate awarded partnerships post-grant. Three descriptive categories emerged from the interviews: (1) Varied support for research partnerships; (2) Minimal capacity for partnership evaluation postgrant; and (3) Need for tools and resources to further support research partnerships.
 
Conclusion 
Differences existed in how spinal cord injury research funders in Canada and the United States defined, required, evaluated, and supported research partnerships. The results provided an initial landscape of funders’ role in the spinal cord injury research system and may inform strategic efforts to optimizing meaningful engagement in a broader health research context.

Keywords
Integrated Knowledge Translation
Partnered Research
Research Funding
Meaningful Engagement
Canada
United States
  1. Scarrow G, Hoens A. The 17 year gap: its origin, evolution and relevancy [webinar]. Health Research BC; April 2022. https://healthresearchbc.ca/webinar/the-17-year-gap-its-origin-evolution-and-relevancy
  2. Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):38. doi:1186/s13012-016-0399-1
  3. Gainforth HL, Hoekstra F, McKay R, et al. Integrated knowledge translation guiding principles for conducting and disseminating spinal cord injury research in partnership. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(4):656-663. doi:1016/j.apmr.2020.09.393
  4. Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Sibley KM, et al. A review protocol on research partnerships: a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):217. doi:1186/s13643-018-0879-2
  5. Jull J, Giles A, Graham ID. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):150. doi:1186/s13012-017-0696-3
  6. Nyström ME, Karltun J, Keller C, Andersson Gäre B. Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):46. doi:1186/s12961-018-0322-0
  7. Andrews D, Fong G, Hackam D, et al. Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: integrated and end-of-grant approaches. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2012. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf
  8. Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma. 2004;21(10):1371-1383. doi:1089/neu.2004.21.1371
  9. Anderson KD. Equitable partnerships between scientists and persons living with spinal cord injury will strengthen research scope, quality, and outcomes. Curr Opin Neurol. 2021;34(6):783-788. doi:1097/WCO.0000000000000989
  10. Gainforth HL, Shwed A, Giroux EE, et al. Transforming research systems for meaningful engagement: a reflexive thematic analysis of spinal cord injury researchers' barriers and facilitators to using the integrated knowledge translation guiding principles. Disabil Rehabil. 2024;46(23):5545-5553. doi:1080/09638288.2024.2310171
  11. McLean RKD, Graham ID, Tetroe JM, Volmink JA. Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):44. doi:1186/s12961-018-0316-y
  12. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637-644. doi:1016/j.amepre.2011.02.023
  13. Holmes B, Scarrow G, Schellenberg M. Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):39. doi:1186/1748-5908-7-39
  14. Graham ID, Tetroe JM. Getting evidence into policy and practice: perspective of a health research funder. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18(1):46-50.
  15. Woolf SH. Unhealthy medicine: all breakthrough, no follow-through. Washington Post. January 8, 2006. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2006/01/08/unhealthy-medicine-span-classbankheadall-breakthrough-no-follow-throughspan/d3b838a9-db0b-4b23-a410-c5de185f51d0.
  16. Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, et al. Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008;86(1):125-155. doi:1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00515.x
  17. Brantnell A, Baraldi E, van Achterberg T, Winblad U. Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):100. doi:1186/s13012-015-0290-5
  18. Fahim C, Kasperavicius D, Beckett R, et al. Funding change: an environmental scan of research funders’ knowledge translation strategic plans and initiatives across 10 high-income countries/regions. FACETS. 2023;8:1-26. doi:1139/facets-2022-0124
  19. Bednarek AT, Miyamoto B, Corbett K, et al. How and why funders support engaged research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;122(1):e2400931121. doi:1073/pnas.2400931121
  20. Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):51. doi:1186/s12961-020-0544-9
  21. Shahid M, Turin TC. Conducting comprehensive environmental scans in health research: a process for assessing the subject matter landscape. J Biomed Anal. 2018;1(2):71-80. doi:30577/jba.2018.v1n2.13
  22. Allemang B, Sitter K, Dimitropoulos G. Pragmatism as a paradigm for patient-oriented research. Health Expect. 2022;25(1):38-47. doi:1111/hex.13384
  23. Kaushik V, Walsh CA. Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Soc Sci (Basel). 2019;8(9):255. doi:3390/socsci8090255
  24. Chan M, Scott SD, Campbell A, Elliott SA, Brooks H, Hartling L. Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: an environmental scan with stakeholder interviews. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1763-1779. doi:1111/hex.13316
  25. Joschko J, Keely E, Grant R, et al. Electronic consultation services worldwide: environmental scan. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(12):e11112. doi:2196/11112
  26. Amiri M, Alavinia SM, Omidvar M, Pakosh M, Craven BC. Systematic reviews in spinal cord injury: a step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians. J Spinal Cord Med. 2021;44(Suppl 1):S40-S51. doi:1080/10790268.2021.1923261
  27. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-115. doi:1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  28. Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16(10):837-851. doi:1177/1077800410383121
  29. Drahota A, Meza RD, Brikho B, et al. Community-academic partnerships: a systematic review of the state of the literature and recommendations for future research. Milbank Q. 2016;94(1):163-214. doi:1111/1468-0009.12184
  30. Oliver K, Hopkins A, Boaz A, Guillot-Wright S, Cairney P. What works to promote research-policy engagement? Evid Policy. 2022;18(4):691-713. doi:1332/174426421X16420918447616
  31. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513-1514. doi:1001/jama.2014.11100
  32. Gill PJ, Urajnik D, Ganann R. Empowering and accelerating impacts of patient-oriented research. Healthc Q. 2022;24(SP):5-9. doi:12927/hcq.2022.26781
  33. McLean RKD, Graham ID, Tetroe JM, Volmink JA. Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro). Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21(1):51. doi:1186/s12961-023-00990-y
  34. Shwed A, Giroux EE, Hoekstra F, et al. Supporting meaningful research partnerships: an interview study applying behavior change theory to develop relevant recommendations for researchers. Transl Behav Med. 2023;13(11):833-841. doi:1093/tbm/ibad040
  35. Latulippe K, Tessier A, Routhier F, et al. Facilitators and challenges in partnership research aimed at improving social inclusion of persons with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2024;46(5):957-968. doi:1080/09638288.2023.2188264
  36. Hendry KL, Vecchio A. Involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury in research: a policy for consumer remuneration. Spinal Cord. 2023;61(5):285-287. doi:1038/s41393-023-00888-0
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 15, Issue 1
2026
Pages 1-9

XML
PDF 738.17 K
Supplementary File
(IJHPM does not take responsibility for any information provided in the supplementary files.)
Shi-Supple-File-1-IJHPM.pdf
Shi-Supple-File-2-IJHPM.pdf
Shi-Supple-File-3-IJHPM.pdf
Shi-Supple-File-4-IJHPM.pdf
Shi-Supple-File-5-IJHPM.pdf

  • Received Date 19 September 2024
  • Revised Date 22 January 2026
  • Accepted Date 11 April 2026
  • First Published Date 11 April 2026
  • Published Date 01 December 2026