ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2018
Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-designed and co-delivered place-based community interventions to reduce inequity in early initiation of antenatal care: findings from the cluster randomised controlled community REACH trial.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2026Trial
- Examining the sustainability and effectiveness of co-created physical activity interventions in vocational education and training: a multimethod evaluation.BMC public health · 2022Trial
- Real-Time Cardiac Biofeedback Intervention: Experiences of Patient and Public Involvement in a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Co-Producing and Evaluating a Culturally Inclusive Dementia Education Initiative: A Multimethod Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Overcoming barriers to implementation of patient engagement in clinical trials: feasibility testing of an embedded study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Developing research priorities for palliative care in Colombia: a priority setting partnership approach.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Reflections on co-producing an obesity-prevention toolkit for Islamic Religious Settings: a qualitative process evaluation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool.Trials · 2023Article
- Co-production of a feasibility trial of pacing interventions for Long COVID.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.PloS one · 2023Article
- Experiences of caregivers of community-dwelling older persons with moderate to advanced dementia in adapting the Namaste Care program: a qualitative descriptive study.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- The relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Creating interventions to transition long-lasting insecticide net distribution in Ghana.BMJ open · 2022Article
- 'Getting involved in research': a co-created, co-delivered and co-analysed course for those with lived experience of health and social care services.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Introducing the Practice Dive Approach: an extension of co-creation in physical activity promotion and health promotion.Health promotion international · 2021Article
- Research as usual in humanitarian settings? Equalising power in academic-NGO research partnerships through co-production.Conflict and health · 2021Article
- The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
plain english summaryCo-producing research with members of the public is increasingly recognised as a valuable process. Yet, despite these good intentions, the literature on coproduction has struggled to keep pace with the coproduction 'movement'. There is a lack of clarity regarding acceptable levels of involvement and attempts at standardising approaches appear generic and lack detail. Moreover, relatively little research has captured the views of all the parties involved (academics, service providers and service users).We conducted interviews with all those involved in developing a new online service for depression in Northern Ireland. Our main questions related to how these three very different groups of people worked together over a two-year period to design, develop and deliver the service (e.g. what were the benefits? What would they do differently?)We found that early involvement was a key factor as this promoted equal ownership. There was also a need to be flexible and recognise other workload pressures. Interestingly, service providers and service users were keen to become more involved in data analysis - this is one of the most under-researched and reported areas within the coproduction literature. Finally, we considered how user involvement worked within complex research designs and how this could be improved. Based on this learning, the paper concludes with a simple 3-step framework that others may wish to follow in order to improve coproduction outcomes within interventions. ABSTRACT:
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.