ArticleNIHR open research2025
Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network.
Article in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping ActEarly: Using a child health map to evaluate a City Collaboratory programme on early promotion of good health and wellbeing.PloS one · 2026Article
- Development and pilot of a tool evaluating community-engaged group processes and community-centered impact for institutional level advisory boards.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Community inclusive approaches in research contribute to the quality and impact of health outcomes, yet communities often lack considerable influence over research processes. The Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network aims to redress this gap by fostering equitable partnerships between communities, researchers, and policymakers. This paper outlines the protocol for establishing the CoPPeR network in Bradford, UK, where community-driven research initiatives are crucial for addressing local health disparities. Methods: We will implement four work-packages using participatory research methods and citizen science approaches. We will collaborate with four community organisations, each located in geographically distinct neighbourhoods serving diverse communities. Together we will co-produce citizen science projects to explore the impact of local environments on residents' health and wellbeing. We will build capacity through providing funding and training to community organisations who will recruit 20 peer researchers across the four areas to design, implement, and analyse their individual research projects. We will co-evaluate the co-production processes in a concomitant way through stakeholder workshops. Finally, we will explore the readiness and opportunities for statutory health and research partners to embed the CoPPeR network. Results: Anticipated results include comprehensive case studies revealing the factors which affect health and wellbeing in each of the case study sites along with the mechanisms of co-production strategies for enhancing community influence in research. The evaluation will provide us with evidence on what works for which communities; this will be crucial to support our plans for developing a network to augment efforts to advance community inclusive approaches. Conclusion: The CoPPeR network aims to enable long-term sustainable partnership between researchers, decision makers and seldom heard communities which will enable effective co-production of research and policy. By detailing our experiences and outcomes we hope that others, both in the UK and internationally, can learn from and replicate our approach.
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.