Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38057931›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023

'Building bridges': reflections and recommendations for co-producing health research.

Vasiliki Papageorgiou, Lindsay H Dewa, Jane Bruton, Keitumetse-Kabelo Murray, Nick Hewlett, Wezi Thamm, Husseina Hamza, Pino Frumiento, Robyn Steward, Melissa Bradshaw and 5 more

Abstract readLetter
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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 'Co-Production Is Caring': Young People's Reflections on Responsible and Dialogic Co-Production in Youth Mental Health.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors.

Vasiliki PapageorgiouNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Patient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK. vasiliki.papageorgiou17@imperial.ac.uk.
Lindsay H DewaNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jane BrutonNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre Patient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Keitumetse-Kabelo MurrayNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nick HewlettNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Wezi ThammPositively UK, London, UK.
Husseina HamzaPositively UK, London, UK.
Pino FrumientoHeart N Soul, London, UK.
Robyn StewardHeart N Soul, London, UK.
Melissa BradshawHeart N Soul, London, UK.
Ellie Brooks-HallNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Silvia PetrettiPositively UK, London, UK.
Sarah EwansHeart N Soul, London, UK.
Mark WilliamsHeart N Soul, London, UK.
Dorota ChapkoNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council LISS DTP CASE StudentshipImperial College London Societal Engagement 2020 Rapid Response Seed Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-produced research is when all stakeholders, including experts by experience and researchers, work together to conceptualise, design, deliver and disseminate research to enhance understanding and knowledge. This type of participatory inquiry is being increasingly used across health research; however, it continues to be a complex area to navigate given existing institutional structures. MAIN BODY: We collaborated across three independent co-produced research studies to share insights, reflections, and knowledge of our work in the fields of HIV, mental health, and disability research. We co-designed and delivered a three-hour online workshop at a conference to share these reflections using the metaphor of 'building bridges' to describe our co-production journey. We generated key principles of co-production from our different experiences working in each individual research project as well as together across the three projects. Our principles are to: (1) be kind, have fun and learn from each other; (2) share power (as much as you can with people); (3) connect with people you know and don't know; (4) remain connected; and (5) use clear and simple language.

conclusionWe recommend that co-produced research needs additional funding, resource, and flexibility to remain impactful and ethical. Co-produced research teams need to be mindful of traditional power structures and ensure that the process is transparent, fair, and ethical. Addressing equality, diversity, and inclusion of traditionally underrepresented groups in research is essential as are the skills, expertise, and experiences of all members of the co-production team.

Indexed as

Community participationCo-productionCOVID-19DisabilityHIVMental health

Identifiers

PMID38057931
PMCPMC10702073

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.