Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32161665›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

Parenting Science Gang: radical co-creation of research projects led by parents of young children.

Sophia Collins, Rebecca Brueton, Tamasin Greenough Graham, Stephanie Organ, Amy Strother, Sarah Elizabeth West, Jean McKendree

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Using social media for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research: The process and impact of a closed Facebook group.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sophia CollinsLauder, UK.
Rebecca BruetonEastbourne, UK.
Tamasin Greenough GrahamYork, UK.
Stephanie Organ4The Science Communication Unit, Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Frenchay Campus Coldharbour Lane, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY UK.
Amy StrotherOrpington, UK.
Sarah Elizabeth West6Stockholm Environment Institute, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, YO10 5NG UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2484-8124
Jean McKendree6Stockholm Environment Institute, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, YO10 5NG UK.
Stockholm Environment Institute · GBEastbourne District General Hospital · GBOrpington Hospital · GBUniversity of the West of England · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParents are increasingly searching online for information supported by research but can find it difficult to identify results relevant to their own experiences. More troublingly, a number of studies indicate that parenting information found online often can be misleading or wrong. The goal of the Parenting Science Gang (PSG) project was to use the power of the Internet to help parents ask questions they wanted to have answered by scientific research and to feel confident in assessing research evidence.

methodsBy using Facebook to recruit groups and facilitate interactions, PSG was able to engage fully the target public of parents of young children in the radical co-production of scientific studies, while not creating an undue burden on time or restricting participants due to disability, financial status or location. By giving parents true partnership and control of creation of projects, PSG ensured that the chosen questions were ones that were of most relevance and interest to them.

resultsThis paper presents a summary of eight projects, with three in more detail, designed and implemented by PSG Facebook groups in collaboration with experts. Most projects had health related themes, often prompted by dissatisfaction with treatment of parents by health professionals or by feelings of being marginalised by pregnancy and motherhood, as well as by the lack of evidence for their questions and concerns. The PSG approach meant that these frustrations were channelled into actions. All eight of the PSG groups engaged in meaningful interactions with experts and co-produced studies with the groups defining the questions of interest.

conclusionsThis radically user-led design meant that the PSG staff and the collaborating experts had to live with a high degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, PSG achieved its goal of academically productive, truly co-produced projects, but as important were the positive effects it had on many of the participants, both parents and experts. At the point of writing this paper, PSG projects have led to outputs including at least eight papers published, in press or in preparation, seven conference presentations, testimony to the Infant Feeding All-Party Parliamentary Group, and with more to come.

Indexed as

Citizen scienceCo-creationCo-productionInvolvementParents of young childrenPatient and public engagementPPI

Identifiers

PMID32161665
PMCPMC7053073
OpenAlexW3010910580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.