ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Involving stakeholders with lived and professional experience in a realist review of community mental health crisis services: a commentary.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Realist synthesis of co-production of services in a local authority context: what works, for whom, how and in what circumstances?Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Integrated mental health for refugees: A realist theory building study.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Creating a collaborative and impactful research environment: community partner reflections on the DeStress-II study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Participatory systems modelling for youth mental health: agility and adaptiveness to enhance stakeholder engagement and knowledge sharing.International journal of mental health systems · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is considered good practice in all health research including literature reviews. Reporting of involvement practice in realist reviews has been inconsistent leaving gaps in understanding of best practice. Realist reviews are theory driven and explain how interventions work, for whom and in which circumstances. PPI in realist reviews provides a link between programme theory and real-world experiences and can be achieved through a 'stakeholder group' bringing lived and professional experience together. This paper discusses experiences of a stakeholder group with seven members with lived experience and eight members with professional experience in a realist review focused on how community mental health crisis services work. A mental health crisis is a time of distress when people need urgent support. Many different agencies can respond to mental health crises, but despite this, people often find it hard to navigate to the right help at the right time. Reflections on involvement in four stakeholder meetings alongside practical examples of involvement activities used during the realist review are discussed. Having two researchers co-lead the stakeholder group from both lived and professional experience perspectives provided a bridge between the different expertise within the stakeholder group. Engagement with a voluntary organisation provided support to lived experience stakeholders, which sustained their involvement over time. Social connectedness was needed to establish trust between stakeholders. This required informal social contact between stakeholders that needed to be planned, especially for online meetings. To maintain the emotional wellbeing of the stakeholders during their involvement, safe spaces for discussion are needed and these are best planned in partnership with the stakeholders. We concluded that consideration of ways to provide opportunity for informal contact in online meetings may improve the experience of the stakeholders. Careful consideration of ways to sustain stakeholders' contribution over time are needed. The emotional impact of involvement should be considered when planning realist reviews. This may include built in flexibility in the involvement to include small expertise specific breakout groups, individual meetings, and should be planned in partnership with the stakeholders.
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.