ArticleJournal of pediatric psychology2025
Community-engaged research in psychological interventions for pediatric sickle cell disease: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe the community-engaged research (CEnR) methods used in the development and evaluation of psychological interventions for pediatric sickle cell disease (SCD).
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of three databases in April 2024 (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO). The review was registered with Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/956AV). All titles, abstracts, and full texts for papers that appeared to meet criteria were independently reviewed by two members of the research team. Inclusion criteria were pediatric or young adult age and use of CEnR for a psychological SCD intervention. Data were extracted from articles meeting these criteria.
resultsThe search yielded 235 original articles, of which eight met the inclusion criteria. These articles showed that the involvement levels of community collaborators (patients, families, and community-based organizations) varied across research phases. Notable gaps in the literature were: (1) few studies reported utilizing CEnR methods, (2) variability in language/terms used to describe CEnR methods, (3) limited demographic data about community collaborators, and (4) a lack of description of CEnR frameworks guiding intervention development and evaluation.
conclusionsThis scoping review found few studies describing the use of CEnR methods in a way that would facilitate reproducibility. Recommendations include using MeSH CEnR keywords, identifying CEnR methods and frameworks, and including specific information about community when possible (e.g., demographic information, meeting frequency, etc.).
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.