Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34183075›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Collaboration with people with lived experience of prison: reflections on researching cancer care in custodial settings.

Renske Visser, Alyce-Ellen Barber, Anthony X, Sue Wheatcroft, Philip Mullen, Jo Armes

Open access · goldAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A virtuous cycle of co-production: Reflections from a community priority-setting exercise.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renske VisserUniversity of Surrey, School of Health Sciences, Guildford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6086-5837
Alyce-Ellen BarberUniversity of Surrey, School of Health Sciences, Guildford, UK.
Anthony XRevolving Doors Agency, 90 London Rd, Elephant and Castle, London, SE1 6LN, UK.
Sue WheatcroftRevolving Doors Agency, 90 London Rd, Elephant and Castle, London, SE1 6LN, UK.
Philip MullenRevolving Doors Agency, 90 London Rd, Elephant and Castle, London, SE1 6LN, UK.
Jo ArmesUniversity of Surrey, School of Health Sciences, Guildford, UK. jo.armes@surrey.ac.uk.
University of Surrey · GB

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme 16/52/53
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement is increasingly considered important in health research. This paper reflects, from both academic and lived experience perspectives, on involving people with lived experience in a study exploring cancer care in prison and how by doing this it enriched the research process.

methodsThis paper is based on written and verbal reflections of the lived experience researchers and academic researchers involved in a study exploring the diagnosis and treatment of people with cancer in prison. The study comprised interviews with people with cancer in prison, prison healthcare staff, oncology specialists and custodial staff. Lived experience researchers were involved throughout the research process, including co-conducting interviews with patients and analysing interviews.

resultsThis paper highlights the importance and value of including lived experience researchers across the research process. We reflect on how lived experience of prison shapes the experience of conducting interviews and analysing data gathered in prison. We reflect on the working relationships between academic and lived experience researchers. We demonstrate how prison research is challenging, but collaboration between lived experience and academic researchers can help to better prepare for the field, to ask more meaningful questions and to create rapport with participants. These types of collaborations can be powerful avenues for skill development for both academic and lived experience researchers, but they require an investment of time and a willingness for shared learning.

conclusionsFor academics and lived experience researchers to collaborate successfully and meaningfully care needs to be taken to develop open, honest and equal working relationships. Skills development for academic and lived experience researchers is important. A commitment to building and maintaining relationships is crucial. Having a third party as a mediator can facilitate and foster these relationships. Particularly with people with lived experience of prison it is essential to put the 'do no harm' principle into practice and to have support in place to minimise this.

Indexed as

CancerCo-productionExperts by experienceHealthcareLived experiencePatient and public involvementPeer researchPrison

Identifiers

PMID34183075
PMCPMC8238630
OpenAlexW3175355195

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.