ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Learning from peer researcher-facilitated surveys: a narrative review on involvement, training and evaluation.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.