ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022
Actualizing community-academic partnerships in research: a case study on rural perinatal peer support.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mixed methods systematic review of consumer engagement in rural health practice, research, and education.Health promotion international · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Quality improvement of a community-engaged authorship system: lessons learned from the RECOVER initiative.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Transportation, childcare, lodging, and meals: Key for participant engagement and inclusion of historically underrepresented populations in the healthy brain and child development birth cohort.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Developing a national strategy of consumer and community involvement (CCI) for women's health research.Research involvement and engagement · 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
backgroundWithin the field of patient and public involvement in health service research, there is a growing movement towards not only involving patients in research but engaging them as co-producers of knowledge. We explore such a co-productive research relationship in a case study on rural perinatal mental health, with the aim of collaboratively developing knowledge based on both the relevant lived experience of a community partner, and the systemic knowledge of academic researchers.
methodsData was gathered through a community forum and subsequent interviews with social service program administrators from rural British Columbia, Canada. Interviews were analyzed separately by the community partner and academic researchers using principles of thematic analysis. Both the community partner and academic researchers were involved from project genesis to data collection, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing.
resultsCommon themes identified by the academic and community researchers included needs for peer support, barriers to peer support, and gaps in mental health care. Divergently, the academic researcher focused on systems-level challenges while the community partner emphasized the impact of power dynamics within health systems. Researchers generated five methodological values propositions from the process of co-production, including (a) mutual respect for all viewpoints, (b) a rejection of assumed hierarchy, (c) commitments to truth speaking, (d) attention to process, and (e) equivalence of contribution.
conclusionsCo-production highlights the value of lived experience in health research, sets it in conversation with scientific inquiry, and moves away from hierarchies of assumed knowledge often embedded in traditional health care research. Incorporating both academic researcher and community partner writing into our paper reflects a commitment to maintaining the integrity and authenticity of lived experience, an affirmation of its equal validity as a source of knowledge, and a rejection of qualifying patient voices. The exploration of this co-production research relationship lays groundwork for future research teams considering collaborative methodology. We suggest co-productive research as a means of addressing the epistemic injustice that arises in health care research from the privileging of certain forms of knowledge, and the exclusion of others, namely that derived from patient experience.
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.