Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39734925›Full record

ArticleJCPP advances2024

Anything goes for participant, patient and public involvement in youth mental health research.

Marian J Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marinus H van IJzendoorn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Marian J Bakermans-KranenburgISPA - University Institute of Psychological Social and Life Sciences Lisbon Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7763-0711
Marinus H van IJzendoornResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology UCL London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1144-454X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cooperative practitioners‐researchers modelparticipatory action researchPPIreplicabilitytranslationtransparency

Identifiers

PMID39734925
PMCPMC11669783

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.