Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35927767›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Nothing about us, without us: is for us.

Aamnah Rahman, Salma Nawaz, Eisha Khan, Shahid Islam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement in Clinical Trials: A Multi-Perspective Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the ROWTATE Programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. No Ethics Needed? Towards an Ethics of Care for Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research with Black Communities to Inform Co-Development of a Framework for Anti-Racist Health and Community Programming.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Embedding Public Involvement in a PhD Research Project With People Affected by Advanced Liver Disease.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Aamnah RahmanBorn in Bradford - Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK. Aamnah.Rahman@bthft.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3534-6100
Salma NawazBorn in Bradford - Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Eisha KhanBorn in Bradford - Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Shahid IslamBorn in Bradford - Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic Participation Involvement Engagement (PPIE) is now strongly encouraged across health policy and research. Coproduction, although linked to PPIE is a way of working that can be applied to work collaboratively with participants in health. However, a lack of definition which leads to interchangeable terminology, limited guidance and examples of good practice on how to facilitate the process impedes progress. The Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme consists of a family of observational and longitudinal birth cohort studies (Raynor et al. in BMC Public Health 8:1-13, 2008; Dickerson et al. in BMC Public Health 16(1):1-14, 2016) which include participants from multi-ethnic and socially diverse backgrounds (Uphoff et al. in Int J Equity Health 12:1-12, 2013).

methodsThis paper aims to highlight our approach to PPIE and coproduction methodologies, to provide an outline of the methods we have utilised to work collaboratively with our cohort populations from diverse communities and how we have managed to overcome challenges to achieve successful PPIE.A secondary aim of this paper is to demonstrate the value of PPIE and coproduction and how it can enhance research.  Some examples from recent years are provided to demonstrate how useful the approach has been for BiB community engagement and community participation. In addition, we discuss the methods we have used and how this methodology has now been embedded into protocol and practice in our research.

resultsSuccessful and productive PPIE and coproduction occur where stakeholders are taken on board and realise the impact that their involvement can have in terms of policy design and delivery.

conclusionsThe involvement of participants and the community in research about them becomes more credible when equal partnerships are formed and they are involved in the whole process leading to community ownership of research. Hence, nothing about us, without us-is for us.

Indexed as

4MAT models and co-productionEngagementInvolvementLay participationParticipationPublic

Identifiers

PMID35927767
PMCPMC9351243

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.