Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39696974›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Involving People With Lived Experience in Electronic Health Record Database Studies Reflections and Learning From the CHOOSE Study.

Emma Cockcroft, Vidhi Bassi, Pearl L H Mok, Alex Adams, Anabel A Claro, Alex M Trafford, Matthew J Carr, Darren M Ashcroft, Emma Garavini, Rachel Temple and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Co-Production With Mental Health Family Carers: The Value, Outcomes and Benefits for Family Carers and Academic Researchers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Emma CockcroftDepartment of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Vidhi BassiThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Pearl L H MokCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy & Optometry, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alex AdamsThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Anabel A ClaroThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Alex M TraffordCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy & Optometry, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matthew J CarrCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy & Optometry, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Darren M AshcroftCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, Division of Pharmacy & Optometry, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Emma GaraviniThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Rachel TempleThe McPin Foundation, London, UK.
Roger T WebbNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Shruti GargDivision of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Carolyn A Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.

Funding

The CHOOSE project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (reference number 566), and the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (NIHR204295) and supported by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203956). CCG is part-funded by WMM ARC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. CCG is part-funded by WMM ARC. RTW is part-funded by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR 203308). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is integral to health research. Reporting of PPIE methods and impact is becoming increasingly common in health research. However, reporting on PPIE in studies using large, routinely collected electronic health record data sets is less common. Anecdotal evidence suggests that involvement in this research context is more challenging and offers fewer opportunities for meaningful influence on the research process.

objectivesThis paper reports the involvement approach for a Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) study and critically reflects on the process and impact of involving young people, parents and carers in research using this UK primary care electronic health record data set.

methodsThe CHOOSE study investigated mental health diagnoses of children and young people (1-24 years) during the COVID-19 pandemic using the CPRD. The study was informed by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) which consisted of 13 members including 8 young people (13-25 years) with lived experience of mental health difficulties and 5 parents/carers, with involvement activities facilitated by project partners, mental health research charity, The McPin

resultsKey benefits of involving people with lived experience in this research included making sense of and contextualising findings and ensuring that they were focused on making a difference to young people's lives. Challenges included the fixed nature of the CPRD data, which did not capture all the information people with lived experience perceived to be important. Researchers expressed limited time for PPIE activities although that was compensated by McPin colleagues who organised and facilitated online meetings, and supported the young people, parents and carers during and between meetings.

conclusionsThis paper describes an approach to patient and public involvement in an electronic health record database study. Working collaboratively with young people, carers and other stakeholders requires sufficient time and adequate resources. We also highlight the importance of appropriate training and support and being transparent about the limitations of PPIE involvement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Three members of the CHOOSE LEAP have been involved in conceptualising and writing this paper.

Indexed as

COVID-19Electronic Health RecordsAdolescentAdultCaregiversChildChild, PreschoolCommunity ParticipationDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInfantMaleMental DisordersParentsPatient Participationelectronic health recordslived experiencemental health researchpatient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE)young peopleyouth involvement

Identifiers

PMID39696974
PMCPMC11655915

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.