ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Consulting with young people to inform systematic reviews: an example from a review on the effects of schools on health.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Involving adolescents in evidence syntheses: an umbrella review.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Guiding, sustaining and growing the public involvement of young people in an adolescent health research community of practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Patient partners' perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient-oriented rapid review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Review
- An evaluation of the experiences of young people in Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research.Palliative medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in evidence synthesis: how the PatMed study approached embedding audience responses into the expression of a meta-ethnography.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Article
- Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Using the nominal group technique to involve young people in an evidence synthesis which explored 'risk' in inpatient mental healthcare.Research involvement and engagement · 2017Article
- Study protocol: Determining what young people with rheumatic disease consider important to research (the Young People's Opinions Underpinning Rheumatology Research - YOURR project).Research involvement and engagement · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere has been increasing interest in involving the public in systematic reviews as they provide a shortcut to the evidence and arguably have greater influence over policy decisions and ultimately people's lives. Case examples of this involvement are rare, especially for reviews focused on children and young people. This study describes the process and impact of consulting with a young people's advisory group to inform decision making in a systematic review on the effects of schools and school environment interventions on children and young people's health.
methodsConsultations were conducted with a pre-existing group of young people brought together to advise on public health research. Their views were sought at two key stages: (i) at the beginning when general views relating to the policy problem under study were elicited; and (ii) half-way through to advise on how to focus the review on key priorities.
resultsYoung people's involvement in our review ensured that the scope of our review was appropriate and that issues which were important to young people were considered. The group was especially valuable in terms of prioritizing in a relevant and meaningful way. A crucial additional impact of involvement was young people providing 'early signals' of key themes for the synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.