Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37828630›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

The INSCHOOL project: showcasing participatory qualitative methods derived from patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) work with young people with long-term health conditions.

Bethan Spencer, Siobhan Hugh-Jones, David Cottrell, Simon Pini

Open access · goldAbstract 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
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Coproducing Health Information Materials With Young People: Reflections and Lessons Learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bethan SpencerUniversity of Leeds, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK.
Siobhan Hugh-JonesSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
David CottrellUniversity of Leeds, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK.
Simon PiniUniversity of Leeds, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK. s.pini@leeds.ac.uk.
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

National Institute of Health Research NIHR300842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence suggests resources and services benefit from being developed in collaboration with the young people they aim to support. Despite this, patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with young people is often tokenistic, limited in engagement and not developmentally tailored to young people. Our paper aims to build knowledge and practice for meaningfully engaging with young people in research design, analysis and as research participants.

methodsWe report the participatory processes from the INSCHOOL project, examining long-term health conditions and schooling among 11-18 year olds. Young people were consulted at the inception of the project through a hospital-based youth forum. This began a partnership where young people co-designed study documents, informed the recruitment process, developed creative approaches to data collection, participated in pilot interviews, co-analysed the qualitative data and co-presented results.

resultsPPIE advisors, participants and researchers all benefitted from consistent involvement of young people throughout the project. Long-term engagement allowed advisors and researchers to build rapport and facilitated openness in sharing perspectives. PPIE advisors valued being able to shape the initial aims and language of the research questions, and contribute to every subsequent stage of the project. Advisors co-designed flexible data collection methods for the qualitative project that provided participants with choices in how they took part (interviews, focus groups, written tasks). Further choice was offered through co-designed preparation activities where participants completed one of four creative activities prior to the interview. Participants were therefore able to have control over how they participated and how they described their school experiences. Through participatory analysis meetings advisors used their first-hand experiences to inform the creation of themes and the language used to describe these themes. PPIE in every stage of the process helped researchers to keep the results grounded in young people's experience and challenge their assumptions as adults.

conclusionsYoung people have much to offer and the INSCHOOL project has shown that researchers can meaningfully involve young people in all aspects of research. Consistent PPIE resulted in a project where the voices of young people were prioritised throughout and power imbalances were reduced, leading to meaningful participant-centred data.

Indexed as

ChildrenCreative methodsParticipatory methodsPatient and public involvement and engagementQualitative methodsYoung people

Identifiers

PMID37828630
PMCPMC10568929
OpenAlexW4387576972

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.