ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Experiences of current practice, priorities and strategies for enabling meaningful consumer and community involvement collaborations in health and medical research in Queensland, Australia.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. 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.
- Improving the Accessibility of Consumer Orientation: Co-Designing Infection Control Training for Consumers Partnering With Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Towards Meaningful Consumer and Community Involvement in Health Research: A Qualitative Study of Consumer and Researcher Experiences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsumer and community involvement (CCI) in health and medical research is essential for ensuring meaningful and transferrable research. However, CCI practices vary across study types, research fields, and settings, limiting capacity to determine changes needed to enhance partnerships. This study aimed to (1) describe and evaluate current CCI practices; (2) explore experiences; and (3) collaboratively identify priorities and strategies to increase meaningful practice.
methodsSequential mixed-methods design, comprising an online cross-sectional survey and in-person priority-setting workshop. Researchers and consumers with experience of CCI relative to health and medical research were eligible. Snowball sampling was used to recruit from six research institutes (4-health-service centres; 2-university centres) and two research-active public hospitals from one health precinct in Queensland, Australia. Four-part cross-sectional survey included: 1-participant characteristics; 2-research characteristics; 3-experiences and priority generation; 4-ranking training and organisational development needs. The survey used multiple-choice, Likert-scales and open-ended questions. Following this, a facilitated priority-setting workshop was undertaken with a sample of consumer and researcher respondents, to identify priorities and strategies to promote meaningful CCI in research. Qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics were applied to survey data. Triangulation was ensured through confirmation of themes across experience data and prioritisation rankings. Data were collected between September 2024 and May 2025.
resultsSurvey participants: researchers (n = 38) and consumers (n = 16). Priority-setting workshop: researchers (n = 7) and consumers (n = 8). Experiences described CCI across all research cycle stages, and for consumers with varying levels of involvement in decision making in individual studies. For consumers, challenging experiences were often associated with having insufficient input or influence on the research. Challenges for researchers were commonly related to resourcing constraints, limited time for process modifications or communication support, navigating inflexible processes and systems, or finding, approaching and engaging consumers for relevant projects at appropriate times. Six top priorities and strategies for improvement were collaboratively agreed. The top priority called for increased organisational development (e.g., dedicated CCI expertise available for researchers to access).
conclusionsResearch demonstrated increasing application of CCI across research fields. Consumers reported genuine and meaningful involvement but sought clearer role definitions. Implementing identified priorities may result in more adequately resourced CCI in research.
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.