Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39924351›Full record

ArticleJournal of sleep research2025

Co-production in sleep research: A scoping review of current practices and future directions.

Emma Louise Gale, Raahat Manrai, Lorna Caddick, Aja Murray, Heather C Whalley, Daniel Smith, Maria Gardani

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sleep research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Developing Best Practices in Co-Production With Lived Experience Experts in Bipolar Research: Insights From the AMBIENT-BD Lived Experience Advisory Panel.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors.

Emma Louise GaleDivision of Psychiatry, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4266-6041
Raahat ManraiDivision of Psychiatry, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9126-1884
Lorna CaddickDivision of Psychiatry, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0009-0002-6483-1236
Aja MurraySchool of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9068-3188
Heather C WhalleyDivision of Psychiatry, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4505-8869
Daniel SmithDivision of Psychiatry, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2267-1951
Maria GardaniSchool of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0975-5971

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/X028917/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 226944/Z/23/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sleep is essential for mental and physical health, and research in the field has substantially expanded over the past 50 years. Co-production methodology has been increasingly used within health and social care research, and refers to collaboration between researchers, policy makers, community partners and wider stakeholders. The aim of this scoping review was to detail the use of co-production methods within sleep research. A review of the existing literature was conducted using seven databases following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Search terms included objective and subjective sleep outcomes, and the use of co-production research methodologies. Sixteen studies were included in the final review: 10 studies used solely qualitative co-production methods to inform intervention design and development (sleep as a primary outcome [n = 5] and as a secondary outcome [n = 5]), and six studies used co-production methodologies to establish sleep as a priority outcome for future research. Most studies used consultation approaches to design interventions (n = 8), instead of using co-design teams (n = 2). Two studies focusing on intervention development recruiting participants from clinical populations with poor sleep, other studies recruited from those with other underlying conditions or a healthy population. The most common limitations of the included studies were small sample size, researcher driven topics/domains for the PAR components, under-representative samples and COVID-19 pressures. Future sleep research should consider the use of co-production methodologies from the study conceptualisation, through to the design, development and implementation of research to further benefit the intended research population.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchResearch DesignSleepSleep Wake DisordersHumansdesign and developmentengagementinsomniainterventionparticipatory action researchpublic and participant involvement

Identifiers

PMID39924351
PMCPMC12592827

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.