ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Participatory research with co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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.
- Early detection and intervention in at-risk mental states: rationale, structure, and clinical experience from a specialized outpatient service.Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater · 2026Article
- Exploring the subjective experience of researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of psychosis high risk states: a qualitative analysis within a participatory research process.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although in psychiatric research prevention and participation are both considered increasingly important, there are few participatory research projects with individuals with psychosis high risk states (ultra-high risk for psychosis; UHR). The aim of this project was to reflect on UHR terminology, diagnostic and treatment guidelines and to identify and implement unmet needs together with people at UHR. Methods: This project was designed co-creatively from the conceptual phase to the execution. The project team consisted of an equal number of mental health clinicians and co-researchers with lived UHR experience. Rules for collaboration were co-creatively developed within the group. Within 4 project workshops, project objectives and unmet needs were identified and prioritized. After setting up an action plan, project plans were implemented within the research group. Results: Unmet needs of co-researchers with lived UHR-experience included free access to information on psychosis high risk states, opportunities for personal exchange, and the creation of more public awareness and knowledge about UHR. Within the participatory research process, consensus on collaboration and objectives was achieved and heterogeneous perceptions towards the UHR concept and terminology were discussed. Consensus: The necessity of an adequate terminology for psychiatric conditions was deemed crucial by both medical professionals and co-researchers with lived UHR experience for facilitating a better understanding between psychiatrists and those affected. Heterogeneity of perception illustrates the necessity of addressing individual needs and utilising diverse terminology and explanatory models within mental health.
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.