ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploration of trust in participatory health research partnerships across two timepoints: a network approach.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- 'There has to be some chemistry there': an interpretive description exploring the experiences, motivations and dynamics of partnered child health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of a participatory approach to the generation of evidence for health and social services from a moral, methodological and policy level continues to gain recognition globally. Trust is a crucial mechanism in the participatory health research (PHR) process and is strongly influenced by context. However, gaps remain in conceptualising and operationalising trust over time in PHR partnerships.
objectiveThis case study seeks to address these gaps by exploring the evolution of trust multidimensionally across two timepoints. SETTING AND
participantsParticipants in a PHR project called the Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) Ignite Network in Ireland (n=57 (T1); n=56 (T2)) were invited to complete a network survey at two timepoints. The PPI Ignite Network had local and national partners. NETWORK MEASURES: Several core social network measures were calculated at both timepoints to characterise the differences between trust dimensions and between local and national partners.
resultsSubtle changes were observed across most network measures over the two timepoints. While there was a slight decrease in the number of connections for each trust dimension throughout the PPI Ignite Network, connections that were consistently nominated in both timepoints increased slightly. Some trust dimensions, such as vulnerability and integrity, were more similar, while others, like integrity and shared values, visions and goals, differed greatly, where national partners consistently received more incoming connections compared with local partners.
conclusionThese findings (1) provide empirical support for using social network analysis to operationalise trust comprehensively and multidimensionally over time in a participatory partnership, (2) offer nuanced insights into the trust development process within the PPI Ignite Network and (3) enhance our understanding of trust in the community-based participatory research model.
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.