ArticleHealth science reports2018
Co-production with "vulnerable" groups: Balancing protection and participation.
Article in Health science reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Involving Parents in Prevention: A Case Example of Research and Intervention Development to Improve Financial Well-Being Support.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Article
- Realist synthesis of co-production of services in a local authority context: what works, for whom, how and in what circumstances?Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Patient and Public Involvement with Forced Migrants: An Empirical Exploration of Ethical Issues.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- No safety without agency: Trauma-informed public involvement.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- The lived experience of co-production: Reflective accounts from the InCLUDE project.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Co-production of health and social science research with vulnerable children and young people: A rapid review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- Emotion in public involvement: A conceptual review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- Are We Ready to Really Hear the Voices of Those Concerned? Lessons Learned from Listening to and Involving Children in Child and Family Psychology Research.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2023Article
- Article
- Adaptation of the trauma group intervention 'Teaching Recovery Techniques' for online delivery: A participatory design and usability study.Internet interventions · 2022Article
- Lessons for Patient Engagement in Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2020Article
- Patient and carer involvement in palliative care research: An integrative qualitative evidence synthesis review.Palliative medicine · 2019Review
- Co-production with "vulnerable" groups: Balancing protection and participation.Health science reports · 2018Article
- Balancing Dependence in Everyday Life- a Qualitative Study of Older Adults and Relatives' Experiences of the Post-Discharge Home-Based Follow-Up Visit.International journal of integrated careArticle
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimThis paper explores the tension between participation and protection at a time when professionals are encouraged to engage patients and citizens in both the "R" (research) and the "D" (development) of services. Concerns to protect groups perceived as "vulnerable" can mean that not everyone is afforded the same opportunity to participate.
methodsOur data draw on the literature and secondary analysis of a study designed to explore the experiences of young peoples' transitions from health and social care to adult services. In seeking ethics approval, tensions between protection and participation were evident, and once the study was concluded, we reviewed group and individual interview transcripts, team email correspondence, and research notes. We considered aspects of participation, co-production, involvement, and research design in relation to the ethics concerns raised.
findingsIn terms of privacy and confidentiality, young people were skilled at setting their own boundaries. Whilst young people leaving foster and residential care are frequently perceived as vulnerable, those in our study asserted their agency and desire to be "visible." Some experienced conditions aimed at protecting their confidentiality or safety as oppressive.
conclusionThe risk reduction strategies that often underpin ethics approval processes can also carry risks. Limiting opportunities to play a part in research for people who may already be excluded on age, health, language, or other grounds reduces the range of lay knowledge on which we can draw, limits generalisability, and potentially adds to damaging social exclusion. Learning how to participate effectively is a life skill.
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.