Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918951›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

'Learning and growing together': exploring consumer partnerships in a PhD, an ethnographic study.

Ruth Cox, Matthew Molineux, Melissa Kendall, Bernadette Tanner, Elizabeth Miller

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From 'Little Things' to 'Seagulls': A Mixed Methods Exploration of Patients' Experiences of Person-Centred Compassionate Care in General Medical and Surgical Wards.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ruth CoxOccupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Corner Kessels and Troughton Roads, Coopers Plains, QLD, 4108, Australia. ruth.cox@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5037-5375
Matthew MolineuxDiscipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6671-4140
Melissa KendallAcquired Brain Injury Outreach Service and Transitional Rehabilitation Program, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Buranda, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2761-2627
Bernadette TannerConsumer Co-Researcher C/O Occupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, QLD, Australia.
Elizabeth MillerConsumer Co-Researcher C/O Occupational Therapy Department, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7420-6779

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer and community involvement (CCI) in health research is increasingly recognised as best practice and is closely linked with calls for epistemic justice and more transparent university collaborations with consumers. Given doctoral candidates play a key role in the future of co-production, examination of consumer partnerships in PhDs is important. This study aimed to describe and evaluate consumer partnerships in a PhD from the perspective of the consumer co-researchers, the PhD candidate, and the academic supervisors including optimal approaches, impacts, and benefits and challenges.

methodsThis prospective, co-produced ethnographic study was conducted over 33 months. Data collection included field notes, a monthly online log of partnership experiences and time spent, interviews or a focus group every six months, and a PhD student reflexive diary. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsThe student, two academics, and four consumer co-researchers were involved. A mean of 11.10 h per month were spent on CCI. The student spent the most time (mean 15.86 h per month). Preparation for dissemination of findings was the most frequent partnership activity. The two overarching themes emphasised that a PhD promotes a rich partnership ethos with the student at the centre and that the partnership was a worthwhile but challenging process. The four sub-themes highlighted that developing a collegial and supportive environment with regular meetings combined with a multi-faceted and responsive co-learning approach were core to success. Additionally, there were benefits for individuals, research processes and outcomes, and for driving change in consumer-academic research partnerships. Recruiting to and forming the partnership, maintaining the collaboration through inevitable changes and challenges, and an ethical and supportive closure of the research team were critical.

conclusionsThis longitudinal ethnographic study demonstrated that doctoral research can create a rich ethos for research and knowledge co-production which evolved over time. Equalising power dynamics through relationship building and co-learning was critical. Additionally, a focus on supportively ending the partnership was essential, and CCI may reduce PhD student isolation and procrastination. Enhanced university incentivisation of co-production in health research is recommended to address gaps in consumer remuneration and student support.

Indexed as

Consumer and community involvementCo-productionDoctoral researchEpistemic justicePatient and public involvementQualitative

Identifiers

PMID36918951
PMCPMC10014401

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read1
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.