Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40546044›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Co-Production and Implementation of 'Count Me In': A Bottom-Up Approach to Inclusive Research and Participation in a National Health Service in England.

Oladayo Bifarin, Jahanara Miah, Michelle Harvey, Gail Faragher, Jade Thai, Dennis Dewar, Jenny Garden, Lindsey Nicholson, Nicola Wilson, Nusrat Husain and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Co-Production With Mental Health Family Carers: The Value, Outcomes and Benefits for Family Carers and Academic Researchers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

11 authors.

Oladayo BifarinMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8247-2508
Jahanara MiahMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2122-7007
Michelle HarveyMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Gail FaragherMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Jade ThaiMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Dennis DewarMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Jenny GardenMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Lindsey NicholsonMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Nicola WilsonMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Nusrat HusainMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.
Dan W JoyceMersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre, NHS Informatics Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9433-5340

Funding

Financial support was provided by the Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre (M-RIC).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch-active National Health Service (NHS) services are linked to better care quality and health outcomes. However, traditional research participant recruitment methods, such as 'opt-in' strategies, often face challenges in reaching diverse populations. The 'Count Me In' (CMI) system was introduced to address these barriers through an 'opt-out' model, aiming to normalise research participation and promote inclusivity. At Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, a bottom-up approach was employed to adapt CMI, ensuring meaningful engagement with service users, carers and communities in its design and implementation.

methodsCMI was co-produced with stakeholders through a series of workshops, discussion groups and consultations with over 300 participants, including service users, carers and NHS staff. Key activities included listening exercises to understand concerns, co-designing campaign materials and forming a Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) Advisory Group. The group provided ongoing guidance to ensure that the system aligned with the needs of underserved communities and upheld ethical and cultural sensitivity.

findingsStakeholders widely supported the 'opt-out' approach, recognising its potential to improve research inclusivity. Participants highlighted the importance of clear communication, cultural sensitivity and robust data protection measures. Specific research priorities, such as mental health and social isolation, were identified. Co-produced materials, including plain-language guides and culturally appropriate visuals, addressed concerns about privacy, stigma and accessibility, fostering trust and confidence in the system.

conclusionThe CMI system is an acceptable and scalable model for inclusive research recruitment, embedding research into routine care. The bottom-up approach ensured the system was tailored to local needs, promoting equity and accessibility. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A partnership approach working with PPIE leads at the Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre (M-RIC) ensured that service users, carers and community members shaped the CMI system through extensive co-production activities. The development of the system, therefore, reflected their lived experiences and priorities, thereby enhancing its inclusivity and impact.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionState MedicineCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchEnglandHumansStakeholder Participationco‐productionCount Me Inhealth equityinclusive researchmental health researchNHS‘opt‐out’ recruitmentpatient engagementPPIE

Identifiers

PMID40546044
PMCPMC12183467

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.