Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696560›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024

Involving stakeholders with lived and professional experience in a realist review of community mental health crisis services: a commentary.

Michael Ashman, Nicola Clibbens, Jill Thompson, Helen Gilburt, Elissa Thompson, Yaseen Khalid

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Michael AshmanThe School of Healthcare, Worsley Building, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4195-0208
Nicola ClibbensNorthumbria University, Coach Lane Campus, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, NE7 7TR, UK. Nicola.clibbens@northumbria.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9047-6496
Jill ThompsonThe School of Allied Health Professions, Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, The University of Sheffield, 362 Mushroom Lane, Sheffield, S10 2TS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9256-1208
Helen GilburtThe King's Fund, 11-13 Cavendish Square, London, W1G 0AN, UK.
Elissa ThompsonSheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust, Centre Court, Atlas Way, Sheffield, S4 7QQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7769-3621
Yaseen KhalidLived Experience Stakeholder, Leeds, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR127709
6 · The paper itself

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

Mental health crisisPatient and public involvement (PPI)Realist evidence synthesisRealist methodologyStakeholder involvement

Identifiers

PMID39696560
PMCPMC11653646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.