ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Going beyond co-production: a public contributor led, local evaluation of the National Institute of Health and Social Care (NIHR) Research Champion role.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Turning the tables: creating space for lived experience leadership in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute of Health and Social Care (NIHR) Research Champion (RC) role, has grown over the last few years. This public contributor role was designed to engage and involve patients and the public in health and care research within the NHS. Yet, there has been little focus on how it is working and experienced. Moreover, there is a lack of research that has been initiated, and/or led, by patients and the public.
aimTo conduct a public contributor led evaluation to understand the experiences and perceived impact of the NIHR RC role that supports NHS research.
methodA qualitative, formative evaluation using semi-structured interviews.
resultsRich and detailed data was obtained from 11 RCs and 4 staff members with thematic analysis identifying four main themes: RC Activities, Recruitment and Background of RCs, their Support and Engagement, and the Impact of the RC role.
conclusionsThe RC role is highly valued by both staff and volunteers, and is versatile; it can be adapted to the needs of the research, volunteers, and hosting organisations. There are challenges in recruiting to the role but there are many positives to those that have taken it up. These include giving dedicated time, bringing valuable life experiences and professional skills, and being a meaningful activity for the RCs. Greater awareness and recognition of this role as a valuable resource is needed with more attention and investment required to staff supporting RCs.
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.