ArticleHRB open research2025
Content, implementation, and evaluation of capacity-strengthening initiatives for public and patient involvement in mental health research: a scoping review protocol informed by implementation science.
Article in HRB open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Involvement of persons with lived experience in mental health research: recommendations.Neuroscience applied · 2026Article
- Content, implementation, and evaluation of capacity-strengthening initiatives for public and patient involvement in mental health research: a scoping review protocol informed by implementation science.HRB open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasingly recognised as a moral and ethical imperative, necessary to increase the relevance and effectiveness of translation of research findings. Despite policy mandates and growing evidence of its benefits, PPI implementation in mental health research remains inconsistent. Little attention has been given to the state of scientific knowledge on PPI capacity strengthening in mental health research that can support more meaningful implementation. The aims of this scoping review are to: describe the content, implementation process, and theoretical underpinnings of PPI capacity-strengthening initiatives in mental health research; identify quantitative outcome measures and outcomes used to evaluate the initiatives' impact on PPI contributors, research processes, and policy; and map barriers and enablers to the initiatives' implementation. Methods: This scoping review will follow JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Sources will include peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, and organisational materials describing training or skill-building initiatives for adult PPI contributors in mental health research. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, supplemented by hand-searching, targeted internet searches, and stakeholder consultation. Data extraction will capture descriptive details, initiative content, outcomes, and contextual factors, with barriers and enablers categorised according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. Conclusion: This review will provide the first comprehensive synthesis of capacity-strengthening initiatives for PPI contributors in mental health research. Findings will inform the development of a co-designed blueprint for capacity-strengthening for PPI contributors, and progress broader efforts to embed lived experience expertise and general public perspectives equitably within mental health research systems.
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.