ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022
A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research: 'If you do it properly, you will get turbulence'.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Pooled 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
- The Dilemmas and Opportunities of Co-Creating Health Interventions to Fit Local Contexts: An Ethnographic Study on the Adaptation of Clinical Guidelines in Tanzania.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Trial
- Patients as Co-Researchers in Oncology: A Qualitative Exploration of Participatory Governance.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- 'Working Together to Meet in the Middle'. A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Power Dynamics in Lived Experience and Family Engagement in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Do new labels solve old problems? Conceptual, ethical, and clinical challenges of constructing restrictive eating behaviours as "self-harm".Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Tensions as productive forces in coproduced mental health research: an explorative qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Young people's lived experience expertise: Insights from the DigiCAT project to develop a counterfactual analysis tool for mental health data.JCPP advances · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Co-Design in Mental Health Research: Essential Elements and Recommendations.OTJR : occupation, participation and health · 2026Article
- ACTIVE involvement in alcohol care: a community case study in coproduction.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation Tools for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Research: A Scoping Review.The patient · 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
- Best Practices Guidelines for the Engagement of People With Lived Experience and Family Members in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- 'Motivating Implicit Chinese to Express Themselves Is the Biggest Barrier': A Qualitative Study of Chinese Researchers' Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Patient Engagement in Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Partnership between a consumer-led mental health research network and a large mental health research organisation: an Australian mixed methods case study.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Research to Confront Climate Change Complexity: Intersectionality, Integration, and Innovative Governance.Earth's future · 2024Article
- Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Research Coproduction: How Can Coproduction Teams Increase Traffic on the Pathway to Impact? Comment on "Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact".International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement in health research from researchers' perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Developing a Women's Thought Collective methodology for health research: The roles and responsibilities of researchers in the reflexive co-production of knowledge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients and public members are increasingly involved across the different stages of the research process. Their involvement is particularly important in the conception and design of applied health research where it enables people with lived experience to influence the aims, content, focus and methods.
objectiveTo evaluate the process of coproducing a mental health-related research proposal suitable for funding through a national health research funding body.
methodsReflections from members of the public (n = 3) and academic researchers (n = 3) were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data were thematically analysed.
resultsThematic analysis identified five overarching themes: valuing the lived experience perspective; matching ambitions to the funded research process; 'Us and them': power, relationships and trust; challenges; and benefits of coproduction.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that for successful coproduction of a research funding application, an open and trusting atmosphere, where equal relationships are established and a shared common goal agreed is essential. Although relationships with research professionals were framed by trust and mutual respect for some public advisors, others felt a sense of 'us and them'. With various tensions played out through interpersonal conflict, difficult conversations and disagreements, coproduction was not a positive experience for all stakeholders involved. Among the learning was that when collaboration of this kind is constrained by time or funding, genuine, impactful coproduction can be more challenging than is generally acknowledged.
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.