ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019
Co-producing research with youth: The NeurOx young people's advisory group model.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- An umbrella review of reviews on challenges to meaningful adolescent involvement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Co-Production within Child and Adolescent Mental Health: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- "It gives me confidence and value": evaluating All_Ears@UoS patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group three years on.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Conceptualising and operationalising 'patient and public involvement' (PPI) and 'responsible research and innovation' (RRI) in youth mental health research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Licensing competent children to assist institutional review boards.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Working with a youth mental health apprenticeship scheme to coproduce evidence synthesis: The youth mental health evidence synthesis hub.JCPP advances · 2026Article
- Constructs, Predictive Factors and Measures: Insights From the Mental Health in the Moment (MHIM) Co-Production Panel.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- "Be explicit to be educated": using thematic analysis and co-design to investigate and understand sexuality education in Australian high schools.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Exploring Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in youth mental health: reflections from researchers and young people.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- 'Co-Production Is Caring': Young People's Reflections on Responsible and Dialogic Co-Production in Youth Mental Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Progressing participatory research with young people in India: how a youth advisory board supported a large mental health project in Bengaluru.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Emerging practice in mental health patient and public involvement research advisory groups: a narrative review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Review
- Self-Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: A Qualitative Study of Attitudes on Reddit.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
- From Burden to Enjoyment: A User-Centered Approach to Engage Adolescents in Intensive Longitudinal Research.Journal of adolescence · 2025Review
- Collaborating With Young People: Identifying the Barriers and Facilitators in Co-Designed Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Cadê o Kauê? Co-design and acceptability testing of a chat-story aimed at enhancing youth participation in the promotion of mental health in Brazil.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025Article
- Codesign is the zeitgeist of our time, but what do we mean by this? A scoping review of the concept of codesign in collaborative research with young people.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Coproducing an Ecological Momentary Assessment Measurement Burst Mental Health Study With Young People: The MHIM Coproduction Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextThe 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them. The Convention inspired a surge in research that investigates young people's perspectives on health and wellness-related concerns and that involves children as 'co-researchers'. Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) are a widely used method to enable young people's involvement in all research stages, but there is a lack of academic literature to guide researchers on how to set up, run and evaluate the impact of such groups.
objectiveIn this paper, we provide a step-by-step model, grounded in our own experience of setting up and coordinating the Oxford Neuroscience, Ethics and Society Young People's Advisory Group (NeurOx YPAG). This group supports studies at the intersection of ethics, mental health and novel technologies. Our model covers the following stages: deciding on the fit for co-production, recruiting participants, developing collective principles of work, running a meeting and evaluating impact.
resultsWe emphasize that throughout this process, researchers should take a critical stance by reflecting on whether a co-production model fits their research scope and aims; ensuring (or aspiring to) representativeness within the group; valuing different kinds of expertise; and undertaking on-going evaluations on the impact of the group on both the young people and the research.
conclusionAdopting a critical and reflective attitude can increase researchers' capacity to engage youth in democratic and inclusive ways, and to produce research outputs that are aligned with the target audience's needs and priorities.
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.