ArticleBMJ open2023
How does participatory research work: protocol for a realist synthesis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating pharmacist prescribing education programmes: a realist synthesis protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionParticipatory research science deals with partnerships underlying research, governance and ownership of research products. It is concerned with relationships behind research objectives and methods. Participatory research has gained significant traction in design of health interventions, contextualising these to local settings and stakeholder groups. Despite a massive increase in participatory research exercises, the field remains undertheorised, and the mechanisms for improving health outcomes remain unclear. This realist review seeks to understand how and under what circumstances participatory research impacts health and social outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow four steps: (1) searching for and selecting evidence, (2) assessing the quality of evidence, (3) extracting and categorising data and (4) synthesising the data in the form of context-mechanism-outcomes configurations. The review will follow the Realist And Meta Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II guidelines for reporting realist evaluations. We categorise and synthesise data in four steps: (1) identifying outcomes, (2) identifying contextual components of outcomes, (3) theoretical redescription (abduction) and (4) identifying mechanisms. A retroductive analysis will identify mechanisms by moving between empirical data and theories, using inductive and deductive reasoning to explain the outcomes-context matches. The output will generate middle-range theories on how participatory research works, for whom and under what circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a review of a published literature. It does not involve human participants. We will convene a workshop to share and discuss the preliminary results with partners and key stakeholders involved in participatory health research. We will publish the review results in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.
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.