ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
The trials and triumphs of co-producing an evaluation plan: A principles-focused evaluation.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Co-Production in Adolescent Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study From Born in Bradford.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Recovery Colleges: A Nonrandomised Clinical Trial Across Two Years Using Propensity Score Matching: Efficacité des collèges de rétablissement: essai clinique non randomisé sur deux ans utilisant l'appariement par score de propension.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Observational
- Turning the tables: creating space for lived experience leadership in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecovery Colleges are mental health-oriented education programs that are rooted in principles of peer support and co-production. Co-production, in this context, involves people with lived experience of mental health and addiction challenges and people with other forms of expertise (e.g., mental health professionals, administrators, and researchers) collaborating on the design and actualization of programs and initiatives. Despite co-production being a central feature of Recovery Colleges, very few Recovery College evaluations appear to be co-produced. In addition, there is a lack of research that evaluates the quality of the co-production processes in developing evaluations. The Recovery College at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, called the Collaborative Learning College, established an Evaluation Subcommittee with the goal of co-designing and implementing an evaluation plan for the program. In response to the dearth of literature on co-producing Recovery College evaluations and the quality of such collaborative processes, the Evaluation Subcommittee conducted a principles-focused evaluation to assess the quality of their process of co-producing an evaluation plan.
methodsAll members of the Evaluation Subcommittee collaboratively developed and agreed on three principles that they felt were most important in their co-production process. Using a self-narrative approach, each member then produced a reflection on the importance of the principles, the degree to which the committee adhered to them, and the impact. Finally, members engaged in collaborative thematic analysis and co-wrote this manuscript.
resultsThe results of this study outline member's purposes for joining the Evaluation Subcommittee, the strengths and challenges related to embodying the collaborative principles, and the associated impacts.
conclusionsThe findings demonstrate the value of co-producing health education evaluations with people with lived experience and highlight important lessons learned through the Evaluation Subcommittee's collaborative process, specifically related to mitigating the impacts of power imbalances. These lessons can be valuable for others to consider in their co-production processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.