ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023
Evaluation of a stakeholder advisory board for an adolescent mental health randomized clinical trial.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of exercise intervention on depression in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Partnering with Latino communities for dementia research: a mixed-methods study of engagement.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Process of Patient Engagement: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Cancer Center Patient Advisory Group.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Measuring Research Engagement among Previously Incarcerated Persons and Other Carceral Stakeholders while Implementing Wastewater-based Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in Jails: A Mixed-Methods Study.Research square · 2025Article
- Siri Add 'Incorporate the Youth Voice' to My Study Planning Checklist….The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025Article
- Communicating the ethical, legal, and social issues in neurobiobanking and stroke genomic research in Africa: Project intervention tools development and evaluation procedures.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2025Article
- Emerging practice in mental health patient and public involvement research advisory groups: a narrative review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Review
- A new treatment approach to conduct disorder and callous-unemotional traits: an assessment of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of Impact VR.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- The adolescent health network: A unique approach to sustained adolescent stakeholder engagement.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCommunity engagement in research is widely accepted as best practice, despite gaps in existing frameworks to evaluate its process, context, and impact on research. The Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression (SHIELD) study evaluated the use of a school-based major depressive disorder screening tool in the identification of symptoms and treatment initiation among adolescents, and was developed, implemented, and disseminated in partnership with a Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB). We summarize outcomes of the evaluation strategy applied through our partnership with the SAB and explore gaps in the available engagement evaluation tools for mixed stakeholder populations including youth.
methodsSHIELD study SAB members (n = 13; adolescents, parents, mental health and primary care providers, and professionals from education and mental health organizations) advised on study design, implementation, and dissemination over a three-year period. Both SAB members and study team members (i.e., clinician researchers, project managers) were invited to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate stakeholder engagement after each project year. At the conclusion of the study, SAB members and study team members were asked to evaluate the application of engagement principles in overall stakeholder engagement across the study period, using portions of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).
resultsSAB members and study team members responded similarly when evaluating engagement process (i.e., valued on team, voice represented); means ranged from 3.9 to 4.8 out of 5 points across all three project years. Reported engagement within study-specific engagement activities (i.e., meetings, study newsletter) varied from year to year, with some discrepancy between SAB member and study team evaluations. Using REST, SAB members reported the alignment of their experience with key engagement principles the same or higher than study team members. Qualitative feedback at the conclusion of the study generally matched quantitative measures; adolescent SAB members, however, reported disengagement from stakeholder activities that was not accurately or effectively captured in evaluation strategies employed across the study period.
conclusionsChallenges exist in effectively engaging stakeholders and evaluating their engagement, particularly among heterogenous groups that include youth. Evaluation gaps should be addressed through the development of validated instruments that quantify the process, context, and impact of stakeholder engagement on study outcomes. Consideration should be given to collecting parallel feedback from stakeholders and study team members to fully understand the application and execution of engagement strategy.
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.