Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543539›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

"There's no us vs. them, it's just us": a creative approach to centring lived experience within the AVATAR2 trial.

Oliver Owrid, Leonie Richardson, Stephanie Allan, Amy Grant, Sarah Gogan, Nicholas Hamilton, Francis Yanga, Nicola Sirey, Suzy Syrett, Philippa Garety and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Group Poetry and Quilt-Making -Creative Public Involvement Approaches to Contentious Concepts in Frailty Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors.

Oliver OwridDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK. oliver.owrid.18@ucl.ac.uk.
Leonie RichardsonUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Stephanie AllanUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Amy GrantNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Sarah GoganThe AVATAR2 PPI Group, London, UK.
Nicholas HamiltonThe AVATAR2 PPI Group, London, UK.
Francis YangaThe AVATAR2 PPI Group, London, UK.
Nicola SireyThe AVATAR2 PPI Group, London, UK.
Suzy SyrettNHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Philippa GaretyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Tom CraigDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Moya ClancyUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Vanessa PinfoldThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Lucy MillerDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Thomas Ward *Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.
Clementine Edwards *Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article describes a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) led creative workshop space held within a clinical trial of a talking therapy for distressing voices (AVATAR2). PPI adds significant value to clinical research and ensures the work is meaningful to patients and their supporters. However, known issues include tokenism, a common power imbalance between PPI colleagues and researchers and a lack of opportunity for PPI to shape the research. PPI has played a key role at all stages of the AVATAR2 trial, including design, recruitment of staff and participants, data collection, analysis, and dissemination. An active and creative group of people was established, with over 30 members flexibly involved across all four sites. PPI group members were from diverse backgrounds, with lived experience of mental health conditions and recovery, and including carers. During this work, PPI colleagues identified that they would value a creative space which would help to promote the study but extend beyond an exclusive focus on trial deliverables. A regular creative workshop was established to support PPI colleagues in their creative work, including material such as poetry, blogs, art and podcasts. PPI colleagues and trial staff have cowritten a reflective piece to share their experiences on the impact of the creative workshops, organised into four themes. We found the workshops to be a powerful tool for forging relationships among trial staff and PPI colleagues, while also fostering personal development. We reflected on how the workshops built up the confidence of attendees and supported demanding trial activities such as public speaking. Finally, we discussed the impact of the workshops on wider trial culture, by upholding the values of the team and challenging the status quo.

Indexed as

CreativityCommunity ParticipationHallucinationsHumansPatient ParticipationCo-productionCreativeInvolvementLived experienceMental healthPatient Public Involvement (PPI)ResearchService user

Identifiers

PMID39543539
PMCPMC11567013

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.