Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40346677›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025

Co-production in HIV research: a case study from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vasiliki Papageorgiou, Jane Bruton, Halle Johnson, Silvia Petretti, Wezi Thamm, Joshua Anderson, Husseina Hamza, Helen Ward

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Vasiliki PapageorgiouPatient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK. vasiliki.papageorgiou@ucl.ac.uk.
Jane BrutonPatient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Halle JohnsonPatient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Silvia PetrettiPositively UK, London, UK.
Wezi ThammPositively UK, London, UK.
Joshua AndersonPositively UK, London, UK.
Husseina HamzaPositively UK, London, UK.
Helen WardPatient Experience Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council LISS DTP
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-produced research is an approach where people with lived experience voluntarily engage as collaborators throughout the entire research process. In this study, academic researchers aimed to recruit and train people living with HIV, in partnership with a community-based organisation (Positively UK), with the objective of enhancing research skills and capabilities of the HIV community to lead and/or facilitate forthcoming research initiatives and projects. MAIN BODY: Our collaborative endeavour involved a group of academic researchers, a public involvement practitioner and people living with HIV (comprising two co-researchers and three advisory group members) to design and conduct a participatory, qualitative enquiry from January to September 2021. Our study aimed to explore the experiences of people living with HIV within the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. All co-researchers underwent rigorous and essential research training that encompassed ethics, conducting qualitative interviews, analysing transcripts and considerations pertaining to emotional well-being. Communication was conducted exclusively by phone or online throughout the project. The unpredictability associated with the pandemic necessitated an adaptive and flexible approach that encompassed personal circumstances and the intricacies of conducting research during a global health crisis. Based on our reflections, we map out our collaborative experiences and provide recommendations for the advancement of future co-produced research endeavours involving people living with HIV at each stage of the research cycle. We identify four areas of focus: (1) building relationships inclusive of trust and rapport and managing stakeholders' expectations; (2) reciprocal learning and ensuring the amplification of all voices; (3) the necessity for flexibility and the integration of continuous reflection; and (4) the pursuit of impact that transcends traditional academic outputs.

conclusionParticipatory research and co-production are increasingly common approaches to research. These approaches have impacts on all stakeholders involved including co-researchers, public involvement practitioners, academic researchers and the wider community. In the context of this study, we demonstrate that undertaking co-production remotely and building meaningful partnerships remains possible where teams build good rapport challenging traditional power structures. The team members affirmative experiences could potentially positively affect their future participation in research, whether as participants and/or as co-researchers, as well as informing the future research strategies and decisions of researcher investigators.

Indexed as

Community-Based participatory researchCo-ProductionCOVID-19HIVQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID40346677
PMCPMC12065313

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.