Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38613790›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study.

Laura Postma, Malou L Luchtenberg, A A Eduard Verhagen, Els L M Maeckelberghe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. 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
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Exploring Experiences and Designing Guidance for Involving and Engaging Children and Young People in James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura PostmaBeatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3199-7179
Malou L LuchtenbergBeatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A A Eduard VerhagenBeatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Els L M MaeckelbergheBeatrix Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a growing consensus that children and young people (CYP) should be involved in matters that concern them. Progress is made in involving CYP in developing pediatric research agendas (PRAs), although the impact of their involvement remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs and assess the extent to which postpatient and public involvement (post-PPI) activities were planned.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews to identify and gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs. The transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti to be coded and organised. Dutch-language interviews were analysed and interpreted together with vocational education and training (VET) students. These students were aged between 14 and 18 years and were training to become nurses.

resultsThree CYP and 15 researchers decided to participate. We focused on three categories of impact: agenda-setting impact, individual impact and academic impact. Involving CYP creates a more enriched and clarified agenda. It ensured that both CYP and researchers underwent personal or professional growth and development, it created a connection between the people involved, awareness about the importance of involving CYP and it ensured that the people involved had a positive experience. The participants were unable to indicate the academic impact of their PRAs, but they did understand the key factors for creating it. In addition, the need to measure impact was highlighted, with a particular focus on assessing individual impact. DISCUSSION: Our study outlines the diverse subthemes of impact that arise from involving CYP in developing PRAs. Despite the potential of research agendas to amplify CYP voices, only a minority of researchers strategized post-PPI activities ensuring impactful outcomes, prompting the need for thorough evaluation of various impact forms and consistent alignment with the overarching goal of transforming the research field. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We involved VET students in the data analysis and interpretation phase by forming a young person advisory group. The data analysis of the interviews analysed by the VET students revealed four distinct themes: 1. Learnt new knowledge. 2. Learnt to collaborate. 3. Learnt to listen. 4. Assessment of the individual impact.

Indexed as

Research PersonnelStudentsAdolescentChildEducational StatusHumansLearningQualitative Researchagenda setting impactchild‐inclusive researchchildrenco‐researchersimpactpaediatric research agendapriority setting partnerships

Identifiers

PMID38613790
PMCPMC11015888
OpenAlexW4394787436

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.