Background Findings from rehabilitation research may be under-utilized in part because of how they are produced, which may impact health outcomes or the economic costs of the healthcare system. An approach which could enhance the use of rehabilitation evidence is for researchers to partner with knowledge users (e.g., clinicians, policymakers, or decision makers) throughout the research process. This approach, known as partnered rehabilitation research, has potential to increase the uptake of rehabilitation research by aligning research designs and processes with knowledge users’ priorities and values. Studies on partnered rehabilitation research have reported on characteristics of the partnerships, strategies, and methods to involve knowledge users, when to involve knowledge users, factors affecting the partnerships, impacts, and outcomes. However, little is known about how partnered rehabilitation research was evaluated and its effects on knowledge use. Evaluation is important to confirm short, medium, or long-term effects of partnerships, ensure integrity of the partnering process, confirm assumptions of this approach, and assess how partners work together. Considering the importance of evaluation and knowledge gaps about the effects of partnering, my overarching research question was, “how has partnered rehabilitation research been evaluated and what are its effects on the research process and outcomes?”

Methods I used an explanatory sequential mixed method design, underpinned by a pragmatic lens, to conduct a cross-sectional online survey followed by interviews. Individuals were eligible for either study if they were researchers or knowledge users who had experience in partnered rehabilitation research. I used non-probability convenience and snowball sampling to recruit participants to the survey. The survey was conducted in July 2023. I analyzed and reported survey findings descriptively. I situated the interviews in a qualitative descriptive study and used purposive and snowball sampling to recruit participants. The interviews were completed early 2024. I analyzed the findings inductively and deductively and reported results thematically. I kept field notes and used member checking and thick description to enhance trustworthiness. I integrated results from the survey and interviews via narrative weaving and presented them in a stand-alone chapter.

Results Participants from the survey (n = 14) and interviews (n = 13) were predominantly female (n = 24, 89%) and white (n = 21, 78%). No survey respondents were knowledge users, but six (46%) interview participants were. Many survey respondents indicated the partnership will be/ had been evaluated (n = 8, 56%). However, no interview participants evaluated the partnerships. Most survey respondents (n = 10, 71%) perceived partnering significantly influenced the research questions, and interview participants discussed how partnering resulted in clinically applicable research questions. Many survey respondents (n = 9, 64%) believed the partnership significantly influenced research outcomes such as the production of useful research findings or evidence-informed clinical decision making (n = 8, 57%). However, interview participants offered few insights and examples of how and when partnering enhanced evidence uptake in clinical decision making.

Conclusion Findings from the survey and interviews suggest that partnering influences the research process and research outcomes. However, there was discordance specific to findings about evaluation of partnered rehabilitation research. Many survey respondents evaluated the partnering process, but no interview participants did. Findings from this mixed methods study confirm some assumptions about partnered rehabilitation research, however; more research is needed to substantiate the effects of partnering and extent of evaluation in partnered rehabilitation research.