ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Collaborating With Young People: Identifying the Barriers and Facilitators in Co-Designed Research.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Young Adults' Views on Priority Health Issues and Their Involvement in Shaping Responses: A Qualitative Exploration in South Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Conducting Evaluations in the Context of Tertiary Prevention of Youth Crime: Reflections from the Youth Endowment Fund.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Developing an animation-based mental health measure for children and young people.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Addressing the social determinants of youth mental health in Newham and Northern Devon: reflections on co-design and systems change.BMC public health · 2026Article
- An adaptive, youth-centred co-design methodology: place-based co-design centring youth and community participation.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Codesign is the zeitgeist of our time, but what do we mean by this? A scoping review of the concept of codesign in collaborative research with young people.Health research policy and systems · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUndertaking collaborative research with young people could result in more relevant research and policy. However, there remains a limited understanding of the barriers and facilitators to meaningfully working with young people. This scoping review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators of engaging young people in codesign research processes.
methodsThis scoping review drew on methodological guidance from JBI. Searches were conducted in Proquest, Scopus, Informit, and Science Direct for relevant peer-reviewed publications for the period of January 2003-August 2023. Publications were included if they used the term codesign and/or related participatory research methods with young people aged 15-24 years. Two independent reviewers undertook all stages of screening and data extraction, with consensus reached at each stage of the study. Qualitative content analysis was used to group results into key themes.
resultsThe search yielded 1334 publications, with 41 meeting inclusion criteria. Publications varied with respect to the age range of included young people, and focused on a variety of populations, including young people with mental ill-health, with disabilities, First Nations youth, and young people involved with specific services or programs. In analyzing the barriers and facilitators to engaging young people in co-designed research we found overall that facilitators included consistent funding, dedicated staff, flexible methods, and youth involvement as co-creators, supported by community networks and extended timelines. Key barriers were limited resources, staff capacity, and logistical challenges like recruitment, transportation, and external responsibilities, which hinder participation.
conclusionsIn conclusion, there is no universal approach to codesign; instead, every project depends on the interplay of various factors. Elements such as resources, communication, process, agency, investment, and relationships can either facilitate or hinder progress, depending on how they are handled. A project that effectively incorporates these interconnected and interdependent factors is much more likely to foster meaningful and lasting collaboration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was a scoping review and did not involve patients, service users, caregivers, individuals with lived experience, young people, or members of the public in its design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or preparation. While the nature of the research-focused on synthesising the existing literature-did not necessitate direct involvement, the absence of young people's participation is acknowledged as a limitation. Nevertheless, the findings are intended to inform future participatory research practices that centre and engage young people and other stakeholders in meaningful, collaborative ways.
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.