# Evaluating the perceived outcome and impact of an integrated knowledge translation approach in the development of an equity reporting guideline: A cross-sectional survey

## TL;DR

This study explores how involving diverse stakeholders in guideline development impacts equity and inclusion, finding benefits like collaborative learning and challenges like accessibility.

## Contribution

The paper evaluates the impact of a JEDI-enhanced IKT approach on developing an equity reporting guideline, highlighting stakeholder perceptions and outcomes.

## Key findings

- IKT benefits include diverse perspectives and inclusive representation in guideline development.
- Challenges include accessibility and power dynamics among stakeholders.
- Participants believe IKT improves guideline credibility and applicability.

## Abstract

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) involves active engagement of knowledge users in co-producing research, ensuring their perspectives shape study design, analysis, and reporting. This can strengthen justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) considerations. We adopted an IKT approach in developing STROBE-Equity, an equity-focused reporting guidelin extension. The perceived value of embedding JEDI principles in reporting guideline development is unknown. This study examines the team’s perceptions on the implementation of the JEDI-enhanced IKT process and its influence on the guideline. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of STROBE-Equity project members (n = 68) between July–August 2024. The 19-item survey assessed disciplinary background, participation, and perceived benefits, challenges, and potential impacts of the JEDI-enhanced IKT approach. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes, which were quantified with frequencies and percentages. Thirty-one members responded. Most were aged 35–54 (61%), female (55%), based in Canada (35%), and trained in epidemiology (61%). Reported benefits of IKT included integrating diverse perspectives, inclusive representation, and collaborative learning. Challenges involved accessibility and accommodations, consensus-building, and navigating power dynamics between researchers, policymakers, and those with lived experience. Participants perceived that IKT broadened the understanding of social conditions in the development process and facilitated incorporation of end-user perspectives, which they believed would strengthen the credibility and applicability of the guideline. They also noted that this collaborative approach would likely enhance the dissemination and uptake of STROBE-Equity and enhance its acceptability moving forward. A JEDI-enhanced IKT approach was viewed as beneficial to the development of the reporting guideline. Challenges such as accessibility and balancing power dynamics highlight areas where the participatory process could be improved. Future research should continue to refine and evaluate inclusive approaches to guideline development to further advance JEDI in research.