ArticleResearch synthesis methods2015
Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 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
- A Systematic Review and Lived Experience Synthesis of Self-disclosure as an Active Ingredient in Interventions for Adolescents and Young Adults with Anxiety and Depression.Administration and policy in mental health · 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
- Why the Fermi paradox may not be well explained by Wong and Bartlett's theory of civilization collapse. A Comment on: 'Asymptotic burnout and homeostatic awakening: a possible solution to the Fermi paradox?' (2022) by Wong and Bartlett.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Self-directed self-management interventions to prevent or address distress in young people with long-term physical conditions: A rapid review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Review
- A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review.Journal of participatory medicine · 2021Review
- An evaluation of the experiences of young people in Patient and Public Involvement for palliative care research.Palliative medicine · 2021Article
- Co-production of two whole-school sexual health interventions for English secondary schools: positive choices and project respect.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- Children and young people's contributions to public involvement and engagement activities in health-related research: A scoping review.PloS one · 2021Article
- The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Patient involvement in a qualitative meta-synthesis: lessons learnt.Research involvement and engagement · 2016Article
- A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane.Research involvement and engagement · 2016Article
- Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews.Research synthesis methods · 2015Article
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
backgroundArguments supporting the involvement of users in research have even more weight when involving the public in systematic reviews of research. We aimed to explore the potential for public involvement in systematic reviews of observational and qualitative studies.
methodsTwo consultative workshops were carried out with a group of young people (YP) aged 12-17 years to examine two ongoing reviews about obesity: one about children's views and one on the link between obesity and educational attainment. YP were invited to comment on the credibility of themes, to propose elements of interventions, to suggest links between educational attainment and obesity and to comment on their plausibility.
resultsResearchers had more confidence in review findings, after checking that themes identified as important by YP were emphasised appropriately. Researchers were able to use factors linking obesity and attainment identified as important by YP to identify limitations in the scope of extant research.
conclusionConsultative workshops helped researchers draw on the perspectives of YP when interpreting and reflecting upon two systematic reviews. Involving users in judging synthesis credibility and identifying concepts was easier than involving them in interpreting findings. Involvement activities for reviews should be designed with review stage, purpose and group in mind.
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.