ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Peer researchers in NHS research: approved in principle, undermined in practice?
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the increasing support and expectation for involving people with lived experience in healthcare research in England, challenges persist when navigating organisational structures. This can result in unintentional exclusion and disempowerment. MAIN BODY: This reflective case report describes the experiences of a doctoral student working with their Research & Development department to determine the checks required for a peer researcher (without an employment contract) to co-facilitate focus groups with National Health Service (NHS) users. Despite best efforts, the absence of clear guidance about the necessary processes for obtaining her approval documents (known as 'Research Passports in the UK) resulted in delays, distress, and the peer researcher resigning. Current procedural complexities of facilitating peer research in the NHS may be perpetuating rather than addressing systemic inequality. Reflecting together as academics and research governance departments, we hope to illuminate steps that can be taken in advance to mitigate future harms.
conclusionsBy taking shared responsibility for what needs to be changed, we hope to open a dialogue that will create collaborative and consistent practices aligned with the principles and aspirations of involving peer researchers.
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.