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.