Background: Collaborative evidence networks (CENs) like JBI, Cochrane, Campbell, Guidelines International Network (GIN), Africa Evidence Network, World Health Organization Evidence-Informed Policy Network (WHO EVIPNet), and many others bring together diverse actors from within and across evidence ecosystems to share information and expertise and build capacity for knowledge generation, transfer, and use. Although extant literature argues that individual and organizational embeddedness within CENs increases capacity, growth, and innovation, we know much less about how interactions across multiple networks jointly influence these outcomes, or how "multiplexity"—the extent to which actors across networks maintain more than 1 substantive tie with each other—may influence knowledge transfer, creation, and adoption.
Objectives: This study sought to explore the experiences of JBI Collaboration members working across different CENs, including the challenges, facilitators, opportunities, and benefits of strengthening ties between and/or collaborating across CENs.
Methods: A 2-phase study was conducted, including an exploratory survey of JBI Collaboration Entity Directors, Convenors, and Deputies, followed by a facilitated panel discussion with members who were selected based on their experience leading groups from more than 1 CEN, with representation stratified by region, language, and World Bank income scale.
Results: The results of this study indicate that currently there is a duplication of effort across CENs, (ie, events, software for data management, critical appraisal tools, and methods and methodologies), and although CENs generally foster a culture of open communication and knowledge sharing across networks, opportunities to collaborate across CENs were not visible or well communicated. Members working across CENs are challenged by the multiplied costs of participation and navigating different/conflicting operational frameworks; however, this is outweighed by the differing strengths, resources, and opportunities that working with different CENs provides both individuals and organizations.
Conclusions: Although engagement and working across CENs is perceived to be "embryonic" at present, there is a developing culture and a strong appetite to work harder to strengthen ties. There is a critical need to work more closely to reduce duplication of effort, and numerous opportunities at both the individual member and CEN leadership levels to open dialogue, share capacity and expertise, and support formal pathways for collaboration across networks for greater global impact in evidence-based health care.