Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37848961›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

Assessing the impact of university students' involvement in the first year of Nurture-U: a national student wellbeing research project.

Jemima Dooley, Amina Ghezal, Thomas Gilpin, Husna Hassan Basri, Katy Humberstone, Amber Lahdelma, Pranati Misurya, Ellen Marshall, Ed Watkins

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Frameworks Used to Engage Postsecondary Students in Campus Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Jemima DooleySir Henry Wellcome Centre for Mood Disorders Research, University of Exeter, Devon, EX4 4QG, UK. j.m.b.dooley2@exeter.ac.uk.
Amina GhezalDepartment of Politics, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, UK.
Thomas GilpinCoronary Research Group, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Husna Hassan BasriDepartment of Psychology, University of Exeter, Devon, EX44QG, UK.
Katy HumberstoneDepartment of Languages, Cultures and Visual Studies, University of Exeter, Devon, EX4 4QH, UK.
Amber LahdelmaCombined Honours Department, Peter Chalk, University of Exeter, Devon, EX4 4QD, UK.
Pranati MisuryaDepartment of Psychology, University of Exeter, Devon, EX44QG, UK.
Ellen MarshallSchool of Psychology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.
Ed WatkinsSir Henry Wellcome Centre for Mood Disorders Research, University of Exeter, Devon, EX4 4QG, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W002442/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudents experience lower levels of wellbeing than the general, age-matched population. A whole-university approach to mental health is encouraged, which must work for individuals from all backgrounds and experiences. Student input is vital in researching and designing these solutions. Nurture-U is a national, large-scale research project exploring better ways to support student wellbeing, with a Student Advisory Group (SAG) that feeds into project decision making. With the first year of the project now completed, we now critically review the processes and effectiveness of the SAG and how well the project is engaging and working with students.

methodsAssessment of the SAG's impact on the project, the student advisors, and the researchers was undertaken through a content analysis of team meetings and collection of advisor and researcher feedback using the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance Tool.

results142 students worked on different tasks in the first year of the Nurture-U project. The SAG was involved in the project branding and marketing, and in the development and co-design of interventions and tools. They reported a positive experience, with involvement boosting confidence. They felt valued but reported not always knowing whether their input was implemented in final decisions. They also recommended different methods of providing feedback. Researchers found student input beneficial to communicate the viewpoint of a different generation and increase the relevance of the study, but also suggested improvements for communication between the research team and the student group.

conclusionsThis critical reflection of the SAG's public advisor role in this large-scale research project was important in highlighting what worked well and areas to improve. As the project unfolds, we aim to adapt our methods of student input, increase the transparency of decision-making processes, and in turn increase student-led decision making within the project.

Indexed as

Co-designCo-productionMental healthPublic engagementPublic involvementStudentsWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID37848961
PMCPMC10580553

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.