ReviewBMJ paediatrics open2022
Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review.
Review in BMJ paediatrics open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Licensing competent children to assist institutional review boards.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Article
- Establishing priorities in child health: Giving parents and youth a voice.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2025Article
- What Are the Research Priorities for the Dyslexia Community in the United Kingdom and How Do They Align With Previous Research Funding?Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2025Article
- Exploring Experiences and Designing Guidance for Involving and Engaging Children and Young People in James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Conducting Patient-Oriented Research in Pediatric Populations: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Widening the lens for pandemic preparedness: children must be seenThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- 'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK.BMJ open · 2023Article
- What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership.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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is twofold: first, to describe the methods used when involving children and young people (CYP) in developing a paediatric research agenda and, second, to evaluate how the existing literature describes the impact of involving CYP. We distinguish three forms of impact: impact on the research agenda (focused impact), impact on researchers and CYP (diffuse impact) and impact on future research (research impact).
designA narrative review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar was conducted from October 2016 to January 2022. The included studies involved at least one CYP in developing a research agenda and were published in English.
results22 studies were included; the CYP involved were aged between 6 years and 25 years. Little variation was found in the methods used to involve them. The methods used were James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach (n=16), focus groups (n=2), workshop (n=2), research prioritisation by affected communities (n=1) and combined methods (n=1). Impact was rarely described: focused impact in nine studies, diffuse impact in zero studies and research impact in three studies.
conclusionThis study concludes that the JLA approach is most frequently used to involve CYP and that all methods used to involve them are rarely evaluated. It also concludes that the reported impact of involving CYPs is incomplete. This study implies that to convince sceptical researchers of the benefits of involving CYPs and to justify the costs, more attention should be paid to reporting these impacts.
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.