Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38635804›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Weaving community-based participatory research and co-design to improve opioid use treatments and services for youth, caregivers, and service providers.

Roxanne Turuba, Christina Katan, Kirsten Marchand, Chantal Brasset, Alayna Ewert, Corinne Tallon, Jill Fairbank, Steve Mathias, Skye Barbic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. People who use drugs and the right to health.Harm reduction journal · 2024
    Review
  11. 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

9 authors.

Roxanne TurubaFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5355-7932
Christina KatanCanadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Kirsten MarchandFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Chantal BrassetFoundry Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Alayna EwertFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Corinne TallonFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jill FairbankCanadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-3185
Steve MathiasFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Skye BarbicFoundry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CaregiversCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchAdolescentAnalgesics, OpioidCommunity Health ServicesHumansPandemicsAnalgesics, Opioid

Identifiers

PMID38635804
PMCPMC11025903

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.