ArticlePloS one2024
Weaving community-based participatory research and co-design to improve opioid use treatments and services for youth, caregivers, and service providers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engaging communities in recovery: Evaluation of a patient and family advisory committee supporting implementation of the Road to Recovery model of substance use care in British Columbia.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2026Article
- The community representative council of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: Co-design and early impact.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- Co-Designing Peer Support Interventions for Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers: A Novel Integration of Community-Based Participatory Research and Human-Centred Design Thinking.Hormone research in paediatrics · 2026Article
- Co-Developed Community-Based Health Interventions with Children Under 18 and Families Experiencing Homelessness in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Engaging people with lived experience to co-design a community-led physical activity and diabetes prevention intervention for people experiencing homelessness.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- A systematic review of co-production approaches that involve family members, loved ones, or carers in the development of mental health or substance use resources/interventions.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- A participatory photovoice investigation of community assets, barriers, and opportunities to curb the opioid epidemic.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2025Article
- Integrating qualitative insights with large secondary data: a protocol for a community-engaged mixed-methods study on adolescent substance use.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Acceptability and perceived impact of a mental health and disability programme in Ghana.African journal of disability · 2025Article
- People who use drugs and the right to health.Harm reduction journal · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating the voices of service users and providers in the design and delivery of health services increases the acceptability, relevance, and effectiveness of services. Such efforts are particularly important for youth opioid use treatments and services, which have failed to consider the unique needs of youth and families. Applying community-based participatory research (CBPR) and co-design can facilitate this process by contextualizing service user experiences at individual and community levels and supporting the collaborative design of innovative solutions for improving care. However, few studies demonstrate how to effectively integrate these methods and engage underserved populations in co-design. As such, this manuscript describes how our team wove CBPR and co-design methods to develop solutions for improving youth opioid use treatments and services in Canada. As per CBPR methods, national, provincial, and community partnerships were established to inform and support the project's activities. These partnerships were integral for recruiting service users (i.e., youth and caregivers) and service providers to co-design prototypes and support local testing and implementation. Co-design methods enabled understanding of the needs and experiences of youth, caregivers, and service providers, resulting in meaningful community-specific innovations. We used several engagement methods during the co-design process, including regular working group meetings, small group discussions, individual interviews and consultations, and feedback grids. Challenges involved the time commitment and resources needed for co-design, which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and limited our ability to engage a diverse sample of youth and caregivers in the process. Strengths of the study included youth and caregiver involvement in the co-design process, which centered around their lived experiences; the therapeutic aspect of the process for participants; and the development of innovations that were accepted by design partners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.