Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41725252›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Communities of Practice and Living Labs: A Scoping Review of Principles and Methodologies for Involvement of Lived Experience Experts in Health and Healthcare Research.

Eliza Watson, Sadia Afrin, Katrina M Long, Clarissa Giebel, Chris Moran, Darshini Ayton

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Eliza WatsonSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1279-0508
Sadia AfrinSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Katrina M LongSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Australia.
Clarissa GiebelDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0746-0566
Chris MoranSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1872-3314
Darshini AytonSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DP240102205National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leader Investigator APP1195357National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (ARC NWC)National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing recognition of the importance of including those with lived experience in health and healthcare research. Communities of practice and living labs are two increasingly common approaches being used for the involvement of lived experience experts.

objectiveTo examine and compare the key characteristics of communities of practice and living labs in health and healthcare research that include people with lived experience.

methodsA scoping review was conducted, and MEDLINE, SCOPUS and CINAHL were searched for relevant literature. One reviewer undertook title and abstract screening, two carried out full-text screening, and one conducted data extraction, with 10% of the data extracted by a second reviewer.

resultsOf the 63 included studies, 19 were focused on communities of practice and 44 on living labs. Communities of practice were mainly used for knowledge exchange, to support people living with conditions or to improve health literacy, services and policies. Living labs were mainly used for co-design and testing of products and services, and for collaboration between academia, health services and those with lived experience.

conclusionBoth approaches are used for effective inclusion of people with lived experience and can be flexibly applied depending on the desired outcome. CoPs are typically used for creating and sharing knowledge, and living labs are used for developing technology and for large-scale research networks. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and members of the public were not involved in conducting this review. The broader project that this review was conducted within has a Public Advisory Committee, which includes one person living with dementia and three former carers of people living with dementia. They have provided guidance on our project as a whole. This review was conducted to inform another part of the broader project and is focused on studies that involved people with lived experience.

Indexed as

Community of PracticeCommunity ParticipationHealth Services ResearchHumansco‐creationcodesigncommunity of practicehealth researchlived experienceliving labparticipatory design

Identifiers

PMID41725252
PMCPMC12928026

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.