Search

Governance is a response to a recognition that traditional forms of decision-making have become inadequate to address complex societal and health problems generated by significant social and global changes (Chhotray & Stoker, 2009). The contributions of scientific and technical knowledge towards solving these complex problems have also been recognized as insufficient (Jasanoff, 2007). Community-based research (CBR) is an approach to research which is designed to make use of the knowledge of community and university members and their participation and collaboration ―in all phases of the research process, with a shared goal of producing knowledge that will be translated into action or positive change for the community‖ (Lantz, Israel, Schulz & Reyes, 2006, p. 239). However, although the contributions of lay knowledge have been acknowledged, how governance or collaborative decision-making is arranged in the context of community-based research is not well described in the literature. In order to address this knowledge gap, a study was undertaken in which in-depth interviews were conducted with community and university members of Canadian CBR collaborations to determine their governing experiences. Results are reported in a thesis by research papers. The first paper focuses on describing the governance structures that CBR collaborations used. In the second paper, the nature and content of problems which occurred in governing CBR collaborations, point to the importance of theory for conceptualizing and solving governance problems. To develop a theory of participation in governance of community-based research, the third paper uses Arnstein‘s theory of participation to propose a grounded theoretical basis for implementing participation in governance of CBR collaborations (Arnstein, 1969). Governance is a means of organizing, shaping and steering a course of decision-making. Governance is a critical component in the organization of knowledge production. Study and theory of governance in community-based research may help in improving understanding and implementation of a critical population health practice.

Background: Systematic review methodology includes the rigorous collection, selection, and evaluation of data in order to synthesize the best available evidence for health practice, health technology assessments, and health policy. Despite evidence that sex and gender matter to health outcomes, data and analysis related to sex and gender are frequently absent in systematic reviews, raising concerns about the quality and applicability of reviews. Few studies have focused on challenges to implementing sex/gender analysis within systematic reviews. Methods A multidisciplinary group of systematic reviewers, methodologists, biomedical and social science researchers, health practitioners, and other health sector professionals completed an open-ended survey prior to a two-day workshop focused on sex/gender, equity, and bias in systematic reviews. Respondents were asked to identify challenging or ‘thorny’ issues associated with integrating sex and gender in systematic reviews and indicate how they address these in their work. Data were analysed using interpretive description. A summary of the findings was presented and discussed with workshop participants. Results Respondents identified conceptual challenges, such as defining sex and gender, methodological challenges in measuring and analysing sex and gender, challenges related to availability of data and data quality, and practical and policy challenges. No respondents discussed how they addressed these challenges, but all proposed ways to address sex/gender analysis in the future. Conclusions Respondents identified a wide range of interrelated challenges to implementing sex/gender considerations within systematic reviews. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to identify these challenges from the perspectives of those conducting and using systematic reviews. A framework and methods to integrate sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews are in the early stages of development. A number of priority items and collaborative initiatives to guide systematic reviewers in sex/gender analysis are provided, based on the survey results and subsequent workshop discussions. An emerging ‘community of practice’ is committed to enhancing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews by integrating considerations of sex/gender into the review process, with the goals of improving health outcomes and ensuring health equity for all persons.