ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2023
Opportunities and challenges in involving people with lived experience of inclusion health as co-researchers in palliative and end of life research: a rapid review and thematic synthesis.
Review 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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a culturally relevant bereavement needs assessment tool (CANCOPE-PI) for caregivers of children with cancer in India: a participatory research approach.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- The experience of individuals living with alcohol use disorder within palliative care and end of life services: A scoping review.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2025Review
- Palliative care and homelessness: reflections on a co-produced qualitative research study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- 'People ring because they're frightened': findings from a realist evaluation on the impact of timely responsive care at home at the end of life.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- How Can We Enhance Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Nursing Science?Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Bridging the divide: supporting and mentoring trainees to conceptualize, plan, and integrate engagement of people with lived experience in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Development of the TIFFIN recommendations for co-producing palliative and end-of-life care research with individuals with lived experience of homelessness: A qualitative study.Palliative medicine · 2024Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Involving lived experience in regional efforts to address gambling-related harms: going beyond 'window dressing' and 'tick box exercises'.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Involving people with lived experience of homelessness in palliative and end of life care research: key considerations from experts in the field.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Effective approaches to public involvement in care home research: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.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
Abstract
backgroundCo-research is a collaborative approach to research, promoting involvement of individuals with lived experience of a research area as experts by experience. Recently, the importance of co-research within palliative and end of life care (PEoLC) has been highlighted, yet few recommendations exist regarding best practice for involving inclusion health groups (i.e., groups that are socially excluded, typically experiencing multiple disadvantages that contribute to poor health outcomes).
aimsTo identify and synthesise qualitative literature outlining barriers and facilitators for involving four inclusion health groups (individuals with lived experience of: homelessness, substance use disorder, incarceration or exchanging sex for money) in PEoLC research, from the perspectives of both the researchers and individuals with lived experience.
methodsThis report is a rapid review with thematic synthesis methodology. Three electronic databases were searched (2012-30th August 2022). Thematic synthesis was used to generate themes across qualitative studies.
resultsThree qualitative studies were eligible for inclusion. Two involved individuals with lived experience of incarceration, and one lived experience of homelessness. No papers outlined best-practice guidance for co-research; all offered reflections on the co-research process. Challenges for involvement included: facilitating appropriate reimbursement; overcoming stigma; fear of tokenism; pre-conceived views and the emotional burden of research. Successes and benefits included: advanced level of insight, a two-way learning opportunity and relatability of lived experience co-researchers.
conclusionsThis review did not identify any best-practice guidance for co-production of PEoLC research with inclusion health groups. There are few, good quality, qualitative studies offering insight into challenges and facilitators for lived experience co-researcher involvement. Further research and formal policy development is required to produce formal best-practice guidance to support safe, impactful inclusion in PEoLC research. It is important that researchers work together with people who have lived experience of the topic they are researching. Palliative care is specialised medical care for people living with a terminal illness. There is some collaboration between researchers and people with lived experience in palliative and end-of-life care research. However, some groups of people have been excluded. This includes people experiencing homelessness, or people with drug or alcohol addictions. This review aimed to understand what works and what doesn't work when involving four excluded groups in palliative and end-of-life research. These groups were people experiencing homelessness, those who had spent time in prison, people with drug or alcohol disorders, and people who exchanged sex for money. This review used a shortened methodology, which allowed it to be done quickly. Three online academic databases (Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO) were searched for research projects: three papers were included in the review. No clear guidance for working with these groups was found. Analysis identified themes across papers. Challenges for collaboration included: appropriate payment methods; overcoming stigma; fear of being talked down to,; assumptions made before meeting people, and the potential of becoming upset. Successes and benefits included: better understanding of the research topic, the opportunity to learn from one another, and how research participants could relate to lived experience co-researchers. There are few, good quality papers, but more research is needed to produce guidance to support safe, impactful collaboration.
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.