ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Exploring the subjective experience of researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states: a qualitative analysis within a participatory research process.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep disruption and its psychological treatment in young people at risk of psychosis: A peer methods qualitative evaluation.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Trial
- Participatory research with co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe involvement and engagement of people with lived experience is considered increasingly important in health research. A growing corpus of literature on the involvement of people with lived experience of mental health conditions, including people at psychosis high risk states, can be found. This study aims to explore the subjective experience of researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states who were involved in a participatory research project.
methodsIn this study with a combined participatory and qualitative research approach, we used a reflexive thematic analysis approach to systematically analyse open reflection reports from researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states, who took part in a participatory research project (VOICE). All participants (n = 12) were asked to anonymously write reflection reports on their subjective experience of participatory research. There were no formal or content-related instructions for writing the reflection reports. Reflection reports provided by eight participants were qualitatively analysed.
resultsThree themes were identified from the analysis of the reflection reports. First "When uncertainty becomes a unifying element - reflecting on expectations and roles". Second "Fostering community growth: creating an environment for collaborative teamwork as well as new and creative directions". Third "Exploring personal and scientific achievements of the project". At the outset of the research project, the researchers' focus was on expectations and reflections on their role within the project, accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty. Subsequently, a sense of community developed within a favourable study framework. Finally, attention focused on research project outcomes and personal achievements within the project.
conclusionThe analysis of the anonymous reflection reports on a participatory research project indicates that there was a positive collaboration between participants with and without lived experience of psychosis high risk states, wherein they were able to interact on an equal footing. Participants reported an experience of equal cooperation and gained relevant personal insights from project participation. Although we do not have clear evidence of experiences of power imbalances or perceived hierarchies based on the analysed reports, these cannot be ruled out and have to be addressed in future research.
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.