Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40650368›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2025

Learning From Those Who Have Lived: A Scoping Review Exploring the Involvement of Lived Experience Co-Design in Eating Disorder Research Methodologies.

Jane Miskovic-Wheatley, Sabina Vatter, Shu Hwa Ong, Bronny Carroll, Stephen Touyz, Kristi Griffiths, Sarah Maguire

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Iatrogenic Harm, Psychotherapy, and Eating Disorders: An Urgent Call to Action.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Jane Miskovic-WheatleyThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2381-5475
Sabina VatterThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8512-0121
Shu Hwa OngThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3364-0111
Bronny CarrollThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Stephen TouyzThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1290-6243
Kristi GriffithsThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7108-2272
Sarah MaguireThe InsideOut Institute for Eating Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0754-9189

Funding

Mainstream-the Australian Centre for Health System Research and Translation in Eating DisordersNational Health and Medical Research Council Medical Research Future Fund Million Minds Mission Grant APP1178922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is a growing demand in health research and policy to meaningfully involve people with lived experience in co-creating research and treatment services, especially in eating disorders. Despite decades of research into risk, origin, onset, progression, and intervention, significant knowledge gaps remain. The aim of this review was to investigate evidence in the published literature of lived experience consideration and integration in eating disorder research methodology to date.

methodA scoping review methodology was used to review research across six databases. Lived experience was engaged in research ideation, search strategy, and analysis.

resultsThe search generated over 6553 articles with 76 meeting the inclusion criteria. There has been growth of lived experience research inclusion over the past 5 years, especially in the United Kingdom and Australia. There was a wide range of lived experience engagement from one-off opportunistic engagement to full project integration and substantial variety in methodological reporting, including terminology, detail, and knowledge-sharing to advance the field. Researcher reflexivity reporting was rare and lived experience descriptions were sometimes limited by methodology (such as anonymous surveys), compromising analysis of representativeness. DISCUSSION: While research incorporating lived experience is increasing, meaningful engagement varies widely, detailed methodological descriptions are lacking, and guidance on practical implementation is limited. Prioritizing time, resources, and trust-building in lived experience research and amplifying the value of seeking and reporting such efforts in grant calls and published research has the potential to address knowledge gaps and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Feeding and Eating DisordersResearch DesignHumansco‐creationco‐designco‐productioneating disorderslived experienceresearch methodologies

Identifiers

PMID40650368
PMCPMC12501570

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.