Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37730642›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Co-producing principles to guide health research: an illustrative case study from an eating disorder research clinic.

Cat Papastavrou Brooks, Eshika Kafle, Natali Butt, Dave Chawner, Anna Day, Chloë Elsby-Pearson, Emily Elson, John Hammond, Penny Herbert, Catherine L Jenkins and 7 more

Abstract 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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

17 authors.

Cat Papastavrou BrooksPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Cat.Papastavroubrooks@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3055-5301
Eshika KafleSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Natali ButtSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Dave ChawnerSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Anna DaySPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Chloë Elsby-PearsonSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2235-2379
Emily ElsonSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
John HammondSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Penny HerbertSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Catherine L JenkinsSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Zach JohnsonSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Sarah Helen Keith-RoachSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Eirini PapasilekaSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Stella ReevesSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Natasha StewartSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Nicola GilbertSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Helen StartupSPIRED Clinic, Research and Development Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is significant value in co-produced health research, however power-imbalances within research teams can pose a barrier to people with lived experience of an illness determining the direction of research in that area. This is especially true in eating disorder research, where the inclusion of co-production approaches lags other research areas. Appealing to principles or values can serve to ground collaborative working. Despite this, there has not been any prior attempt to co-produce principles to guide the work of a research group and serve as a basis for developing future projects.

methodsThe aim of this piece of work was to co-produce a set of principles to guide the conduct of research within our lived experience led research clinic, and to offer an illustrative case for the value of this as a novel co-production methodology. A lived experience panel were recruited to our eating disorder research group. Through an iterative series of workshops with the members of our research clinic (composed of a lived experience panel, clinicians, and researchers) we developed a set of principles which we agreed were important in ensuring both the direction of our research, and the way in which we wanted to work together.

resultsSix key principles were developed using this process. They were that research should aim to be: 1) real world-offering a clear and concrete benefit to people with eating disorders, 2) tailored-suitable for marginalised groups and people with atypical diagnoses, 3) hopeful-ensuring that hope for recovery was centred in treatment, 4) experiential-privileging the 'voice' of people with eating disorders, 5) broad-encompassing non-standard therapeutic treatments and 6) democratic-co-produced by people with lived experience of eating disorders.

conclusionsWe reflect on some of the positives as well as limitations of the process, highlighting the importance of adequate funding for longer-term co-production approaches to be taken, and issues around ensuring representation of minority groups. We hope that other health research groups will see the value in co-producing principles to guide research in their own fields, and will adapt, develop, and refine this novel methodology.

Indexed as

Anorexia nervosaBulimia nervosaCo-productionEating disordersLived experiencePPIResearch priority settingService-user led research

Identifiers

PMID37730642
PMCPMC10510247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.