ArticleJCPP advances2024
Anything goes for participant, patient and public involvement in youth mental health research.
Article in JCPP advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and Facilitators to The Involvement of Under-Represented Children and Young People (aged 8-25) in Mental Health Research - a Systematic Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Practitioner Review: Clinical insights from attachment theory and research for professionals working with young children and their families.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Review
- A Youth-Led Evaluation of Adolescent Involvement in a Project on Development of Guidelines for Adolescent Involvement in Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Progressing participatory research with young people in India: how a youth advisory board supported a large mental health project in Bengaluru.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Participatory research in child psychology & psychiatry: Embracing untidiness to break new ground.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- Anything goes for participant, patient and public involvement in youth mental health research.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- Shining a spotlight on youth involvement in mental health research: Challenges and innovations.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- No decision about me, without me: Collaborating with young people in mental health research.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- Realising the potential of participatory research in youth mental health: Time to go back to basics.JCPP advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Participant and Public Involvement in youth mental health research aims at making research more responsive to the needs of youth struggling with mental health issues, their parents, and mental health professionals and other stakeholders. Do characteristics of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in youth mental health research align with transparency and replication prerequisites as necessary conditions for translation? Relatedly, the question is addressed whether co-authorship should be assigned to youth involved in the study. Methods: Here we address these questions re-visiting 50 PPI studies included in two recent systematic reviews of PPI on characteristics that are pertinent to questions about transparency, replicability, translatability, and co-authorship in PPI research. Results: Almost two-third of the studies on youth mental health incorporating PPI translate their results to policy or practice, mostly as recommendations but sometimes also by dissemination of (online) interventions. At the same time the authors of a substantial majority of the studies (70%) also suggest the need for further work on their results, for example, in randomized controlled trials to validate the outcome of their exploratory inquiry. Only a quarter of the studies using PPI met the conditions for replicability, thus a majority of the PPI studies suggest premature translation of results. Authorship to involved participants was assigned in 24% of the studies. Conclusions: "Anything goes" for PPI in an exploratory stage to generate fruitful hypotheses. Translation of the findings of PPI studies however require a firm evidence base of replicated results. Radical merging of research and action in participatory action research seems incompatible with replicable and therefore translatable inquiry. Assigning co-authorship to PPI representatives is often at odds with current guidelines for authorship. More evidence from randomized trials on the translational impact of PPI is needed before grant foundations should require PPI in grant proposals.
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.