ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 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
51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review: Patient and Public Involvement of Children and Young People in Mental Health Research.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2024Pooled it
- Youth engagement in mental health research: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Early Evaluation of IMAGINATOR 2.0 Intervention Targeting Self-Harm in Young People: Single-Arm Feasibility Trial.JMIR formative research · 2026Trial
- 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
- The Many Faces of Engagement: A Scoping Review of Paediatric Patient and Family Engagement in Clinical Care, Education and Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Seen but not heard: A qualitative interview study exploring the views and experiences of children and young people referred to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services for support with suicidality.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Working With People With Experience of Psychosis to Co-Design an Educational and Anti-Stigma Psychosis Intervention for Schools.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Debate: Are we over-pathologising young people's mental health? The role of participatory research in moving beyond pathology.Child and adolescent mental health · 2025Article
- A quasi-experimental study on a co-production- and school-based psychosocial well-being program in Hong Kong.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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
- Adapting Experience-Based Co-Design to Disability Research: Co-Producing the CycLink Co-Design Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Co-production in HIV research: a case study from the COVID-19 pandemic.Research involvement and engagement · 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
- A commentary on ophthalmic patients co-designing a new tool to better understand their hospital letters.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Working with children and young people in research: Supportive practices and pathways to impact.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2025Review
- Co-producing data-intensive research with an underserved group: a case study and evaluation identifying pathways to impact.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Elevating lived experience in overdose prevention: a community case study of Arizona's overdose data to action community advisory board.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Using a co-design methodological approach to optimize perioperative nursing care for older adult patients from ethnically diverse backgrounds: a study protocol.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence of genuine equal partnership where power is shared with young people with mental health difficulties throughout all research stages, particularly in data collection and analysis.
objectiveTo describe how our qualitative study, exploring young peoples' perceptions on the feasibility of using technology to detect mental health deterioration, was co-produced using principles of co-production, whilst reflecting on impact, challenges and recommendations.
methodsYoung people with experience of mental health difficulties were appointed and then worked with researchers throughout all research stages. The study was evaluated against the five principles of co-production. Reflections from researchers and young people were collected throughout.
resultsSeven young people formed an initial Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG); three became co-researchers. Reflection was key throughout the process. Sharing power became easier and more evident as trust, confidence and mutual respect grew over time, particularly after a safe space was established. The safe space was crucial for open discussions, and our WhatsApp group enabled continual communication, support and shared decision-making. The resulting co-produced topic guide, coding framework, thematic map, papers and presentations demonstrated significant impact.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first qualitative mental health study to be co-produced using the principles of co-production. Our rigorous assessment can be utilized as an informative document to help others to produce meaningful co-produced future research. Although co-production takes time, it makes significant impact to the research, researchers and co-researchers. Flexible funding for spontaneous suggestions from co-researchers and more time for interview training is recommended.
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.