Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38057888›Full record

ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2023

Implementation and evaluation of participatory advisory boards in mental health research: a research protocol of the 'PART-Beirat' project.

Fenia Ferra, Eva Drewelow, Olga Klein, Marcel Daum, Peggy Walde, Kai Gerullis, Ingo Kilimann, Jack Tomlin, Stefan Teipel, Birgit Völlm

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Development of a Patient and Carer Advisory Board to Co-Design Health Services Research for the Quality of Care of People With Dementia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Fenia FerraClinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany. f.ferra@vu.nl.
Eva DrewelowClinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany.
Olga KleinClinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany.
Marcel DaumDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Peggy WaldeClinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany.
Kai GerullisClinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany.
Ingo KilimannDeutsches Zentrum Für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE) Rostock/Greifswald, Rostock, Germany.
Jack TomlinSchool of Law and Criminology, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Stefan TeipelDeutsches Zentrum Für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen (DZNE) Rostock/Greifswald, Rostock, Germany.
Birgit VöllmClinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Rostock University Medical Centre, Rostock, Germany.
University of Rostock · DEGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEUniversity of Greenwich · GB

Funding

Bosch Health Campus of the Robert Bosch Stiftung 01000831-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of participatory research approaches in the field of dementia and forensic mental health research has been on the rise. Advisory board structures, involving people with lived experience (PWLE), have frequently been used for guiding and leading research. Yet, there has been limited guidance on the establishment, retention and use of advisory boards in the field of dementia and forensic mental health research.

objectiveThis project outlined in this research protocol will investigate the benefits and challenges of establishing three patient advisory boards, involving PWLE, practitioners and researchers with the purpose to guide research. Data will be used to develop guidelines for best practice in involving PWLE in dementia and forensic mental health research through advisory boards.

methodsThe research project will be divided into three phases: Phase I will involve two topic-specific systematic reviews on the use of participatory research with PWLE, followed by an initial study exploring PWLE's, practitioners' and researchers' expectations on research involvement. Phase II will consist of the establishment of three advisory boards, one focusing on dementia, one on forensic mental health and one overarching coordinating advisory board, which will involve PWLE from both fields. Phase III, will consist of interviews and focus groups with advisory board members, exploring any challenges and benefits of involving PWLE and practitioners in advisory boards for guiding research. To capture the impact of involving PWLE in different research phases and tasks, interviews and focus groups will be conducted at four different points of time (0, 6, 12, 18 months). Reflexive thematic analysis will be used for the analysis of data. DISCUSSION: The project aims to explore the involvement of PWLE and practitioners in guiding research and aims to develop guidelines for best practice in establishing and using patient advisory boards in dementia and forensic mental health research and involving PWLE and practitioners in research.

Indexed as

Advisory boardsDementiaForensic mental healthParticipatory researchPatient and public involvement (PPI)People with lived experience (PWLE)Secure hospitals

Identifiers

PMID38057888
PMCPMC10702121
OpenAlexW4389399716

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.