Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39734923›Full record

ArticleJCPP advances2024

No decision about me, without me: Collaborating with young people in mental health research.

Alex Lloyd, Tom Chin-Han Wu, Laura Lucas, Adeola Agunbiade, Romana Saleh, Pasco Fearon, Essi Viding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCPP advances, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Understanding and Defining Young People's Involvement and Under-Representation in Mental Health Research: A Delphi Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Alex LloydClinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Psychology and Language Sciences University College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0627-0952
Tom Chin-Han WuClinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Psychology and Language Sciences University College London London UK.
Laura LucasClinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Psychology and Language Sciences University College London London UK.
Adeola AgunbiadeYoung People's Advisory Group London UK.
Romana SalehYoung People's Advisory Group London UK.
Pasco FearonClinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Psychology and Language Sciences University College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1847-8443
Essi VidingClinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Psychology and Language Sciences University College London London UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Involving young people with lived experience in youth mental health research is important. In recognition of the value of collaborating with experts by experience, international funders are increasingly mandating that mental health research is developed by teams that include individuals from the population of study. Yet, research into how Patient Public Involvement, specifically co-production and co-design, is implemented in youth mental health research is limited to date. The current review examined this question and identified common practices for collaborating with experts by experience in young people's mental health research. Academic databases were systematically searched for studies that had involved young people in mental health research, had described these activities, and had reported some demographic information about the experts by experience. From a total of 2130 studies that were screened, 37 studies were eligible for inclusion. The use of co-production and co-design spanned a wide range of topics, including interventions, digital support tools and psychometric studies. Interactive workshops were the primary method of engaging experts by experience, although some studies utilised interviews or focus groups. From the reviewed studies we identified common methodological practices including: Scene setting, utilising a cyclical process, ensuring appropriate engagement and recognition of the cultural context. We draw on these findings to suggest common methods for conducting co-production and co-design activities, and emphasise the importance of ensuring experts by experience are respected and safeguarded throughout their collaboration in research. We also outline areas that deserve future attention and development, and include a response from two young people aged 16-18 and their suggestions for improving and extending co-production methods.

Indexed as

co‐designco‐productiondevelopmental psychopathologyparticipatory researchPPI

Identifiers

PMID39734923
PMCPMC11669772

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.