Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40092462›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025

Establishing a peer advisory board in a mental health ethics research group - challenges, benefits, facilitators and lessons learned.

Mirjam Faissner, Esther Braun, Simone Agnes Efkemann, Anne-Sophie Gaillard, Iris Haferkemper, Christin Hempeler, Imke Heuer, Ursula Lux, Sarah Potthoff, Matthé Scholten and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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. Article
  2. Article
  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

15 authors.

Mirjam FaissnerInstitute of the History of Medicine and Ethics in Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Esther BraunJunior Professorship for Medical Ethics with a Focus on Digitization, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Simone Agnes EfkemannDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Anne-Sophie GaillardInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Iris HaferkemperPeer Advisory Board, BMBF Research Group SALUS, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Christin HempelerInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Imke HeuerPeer Advisory Board, BMBF Research Group SALUS, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Ursula LuxPeer Advisory Board, BMBF Research Group SALUS, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Sarah PotthoffInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Matthé ScholtenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Sylvia SpiegelPeer Advisory Board, BMBF Research Group SALUS, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Christina StefaniakPeer Advisory Board, BMBF Research Group SALUS, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Madeleine ThesingPeer Advisory Board, BMBF Research Group SALUS, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Anna WerningDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Jakov GatherDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While participatory methods are regarded as beneficial in many areas of psychiatric research, they are still rarely considered in the field of mental health ethics. Yet, there are several epistemic and ethical reasons why participatory research is particularly important in this field, such as the high relevance of experiential knowledge for ethical analyses. In this article, we report our experiences with establishing a peer advisory board for an existing mental health ethics research group. We demonstrate how a peer advisory board can provide low-threshold opportunities for various forms of participation, which can occur simultaneously within one research project. We first describe how we established the peer advisory board and explain its structure. We then give an overview of several research projects that involved various forms of participation by members of the peer advisory board, such as the development of a template for a psychiatric advance directive, the co-writing of articles, and the organization of scientific events. We discuss the challenges, benefits, and facilitators of a peer advisory board from our different vantage points as service users, relatives, clinicians, and researchers. Challenges included organizational barriers such as time constraints and rigid bureaucratic structures within academic institutions and funding bodies as well as the persistence of power imbalances between members of the research group and the peer advisory board. Benefits included the opportunity for personal development and capacity building among both peer advisory board members and members of the research group, and the multiplication of research results among the relevant communities. Based on a reflection on our own experiences, we argue that participatory research in mental health ethics is not only ethically and epistemically desirable but also practically feasible. We close by formulating several lessons learned from our experiences.

Indexed as

consumer/survivor/ex-patient movementexperiential knowledgemedical ethicsparticipatory researchpsychiatryservice user involvement

Identifiers

PMID40092462
PMCPMC11907373

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.