Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36978148›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Evaluation of a stakeholder advisory board for an adolescent mental health randomized clinical trial.

Alicia M Hoke, Perri Rosen, Francesca Pileggi, Alissa Molinari, Deepa L Sekhar

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Siri Add 'Incorporate the Youth Voice' to My Study Planning Checklist….The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alicia M HokeDepartment of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, 90 Hope Drive, A145, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA. ahoke@psu.edu.
Perri RosenGarrett Lee Smith Youth Suicide Prevention Grant, Harrisburg, PA, USA.
Francesca PileggiAevidum, Executive Director, Lancaster, PA, USA.
Alissa MolinariDepartment of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, 90 Hope Drive, A145, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
Deepa L SekharDepartment of Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, 90 Hope Drive, A145, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Adolescents and young adultsCommunity-engaged researchEngagement evaluationProgram evaluationStakeholders

Identifiers

PMID36978148
PMCPMC10044104
OpenAlexW4361216802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.