Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42642786›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Learning from peer researcher-facilitated surveys: a narrative review on involvement, training and evaluation.

Tadhg J G Blunt, Sarah Skyrme, Jessica Drinkwater

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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. 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

3 authors.

Tadhg J G BluntDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, 5th Floor, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. tadhg.blunt@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1087-2905
Sarah SkyrmeDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, 5th Floor, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6173-0117
Jessica DrinkwaterDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, 5th Floor, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1034-0781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer researchers (PRs) are defined as individuals whose lived experience aligns with that of the population being studied. Their involvement is intended to bring shared experiences and insights that can generate richer, more meaningful data than can be achieved through a traditional researcher-participant relationship. Although PRs frequently support data collection through surveys, the ways in which these roles are supported and evaluated remain inconsistently described and poorly understood.

aimTo critically examine existing literature on PR-facilitated survey-based data collection methods, with a focus on training, support and evaluation. The review aims to highlight recurrent challenges and propose recommendations for future PR-facilitated data collection methods. APPROACH/

methodsAn initial search of the literature aimed to identify studies using PRs to collect data using surveys. The search found inconsistent terminology and heterogeneous reporting across studies. A narrative, interpretive review was therefore undertaken to collate the literature allowing for diversity in reporting and terminology, to ensure valuable methodological and experiential insights were not overlooked.

findingsAcross studies, PR roles varied substantially, many were limited to data collection alone, while others entailed participation across all stages of the research process. Training provision ranged from intensive, structured programmes to minimal or absent preparation, often justified by assumptions about prior experience. While PR involvement was frequently credited with improving recruitment, rapport and data richness, systematic evaluation was uncommon. Reported challenges included unclear role expectations, insufficient support and persistent hierarchical dynamics raising concerns about tokenistic involvement. PR-facilitated surveys provided structure but risked missing nuanced responses.

conclusionPR-facilitated data collection methods offer significant potential to enhance equity, relevance and inclusivity in participatory research, but these benefits are not automatic. Meaningful involvement requires role clarity, training designed to build capacity and support power-sharing, systematic evaluation of PR experiences, and appropriate funding and infrastructure. This review highlights the need to move beyond symbolic patient and public involvement requirements, towards transparent reporting and sustained support for PR roles.

Indexed as

Participatory researchPatient and public involvementPeer researchersSurveys

Identifiers

PMID42642786
PMCPMC13505067

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.