Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40319260›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Grey literature scoping review: a synthesis of the application of participatory methodologies in underrepresented groups at an elevated risk of dementia.

Katrina Messiha, Nicole Thomas, Carol Brayne, Danielle M Agnello, Lea R Delfmann, Maria Giné-Garriga, Sonia Lippke, John Downey

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Katrina Messiha *Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, NL-1081 BT, The Netherlands. k.m.messiha@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-3383-0719
Nicole Thomas *Cambridge Public Health, Department of Psychiatry, Herschel Smith Building, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Forvie Site, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK. nlt27@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0072-1943
Carol BrayneCambridge Public Health, Department of Psychiatry, Herschel Smith Building, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Forvie Site, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5307-663X
Danielle M AgnelloSchool of Health & Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0002-5293-0512
Lea R DelfmannDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8333-0563
Maria Giné-GarrigaDepartment of Sport Sciences, Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4449-3524
Sonia LippkeSchool of Business, Social & Decision Sciences, Constructor University, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8272-0399
John DowneySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, England.ORCID 0000-0001-8534-2437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiverse populations are more exposed to life course influences on adverse ageing, including brain ageing. Research into dementia in the United Kingdom inadvertently lacks diversity. Therefore, there is a need for more inclusive dementia research, developed in a way to ensure those who are currently missing from standard health data are represented. This may warrant the use of co-creation (emphasising collaborative creation and solution development), drawing on participatory methodologies in healthcare, research and service delivery.

methodsThis study presents a scoping review of grey literature using Arksey and O'Malley's methodology. Literature was sourced from the Patient Experience Library and supplemented by a targeted Google Scholar search, employing snowball sampling to identify additional materials. The search strategy incorporated keywords such as "marginalised", "vulnerable", "disadvantaged" and participatory terms like "co-creation" and "co-design". Two reviewers independently screened and extracted key higher-level attributes (e.g., type of report, purpose of the activity (design), participating stakeholders/target populations) as well as data related to "co-creation process dimensions" and "participation levels".

resultsOur review identified 30 grey literature reports on participatory methodologies among underrepresented groups living with or at elevated risk of dementia, covering diverse locations within the United Kingdom. The reported activities aimed to enhance healthcare and social services through stakeholder participation. Our findings highlight a focus on multi-stakeholder collaborative action as the dominant co-creation dimension identified. However, there was also a notable absence of more inclusive methodologies, with consultation being the most commonly used approach.

conclusionsOur scoping review highlights the value of grey literature in understanding participatory methodologies for underrepresented populations at risk of or living with dementia. It reveals there is still a potential need to shift from mere consultations to sustained partnerships, promoting meaningful inclusion and greater ownership of (health) outcomes among these populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this grey literature scoping review. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchDementiaMinority GroupsHumansUnited KingdomAgeingBrain healthCo-creationCo-designCo-productionSuper diversityUnderserved

Identifiers

PMID40319260
PMCPMC12048973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.