Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40682074›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025

Engaging people with lived experience on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review.

Georgia Nelson, Meghan Jenkins, Bruce Knox, Eva Purkey, Sophy Chan-Nguyen, Michele Cole, Logan Jackson, Imaan Bayoumi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Georgia NelsonSchool of Medicine, Queen's University, 80 Barrie Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Meghan JenkinsSchool of Medicine, Queen's University, 80 Barrie Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Bruce KnoxDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, 220 Bagot Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 5E9, Canada.
Eva PurkeyDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, 220 Bagot Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 5E9, Canada.
Sophy Chan-NguyenDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, 220 Bagot Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 5E9, Canada.
Michele ColeDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, 220 Bagot Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 5E9, Canada.
Logan JacksonDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, 220 Bagot Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 5E9, Canada.
Imaan BayoumiDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, 220 Bagot Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 5E9, Canada. bayoumi@queensu.ca.

Funding

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 6034834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCommunity-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research process which engages researchers and community members as equals during all phases of a research project. This approach promotes social change and enhances the practical relevance of the research. One key tool in CBPR is the community advisory board (CAB), where individuals with lived experience and community organizations are integrated into the research process and align research with community priorities. This scoping review: (1) explores best practices for effective recruitment and engagement of people with lived experience (PWLE) on CABs; and (2) identifies the scope of literature on minimizing power dynamics between organizations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together.

designA scoping review was conducted utilizing Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Peer reviewed publications and grey literature published between Jan. 1, 1990, and Mar. 30, 2023, were considered. Two independent reviewers screened references in successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Selected studies were analyzed using a content analysis strategy with NVIVO software.

results2346 peer-reviewed studies and 15 articles of grey literature were identified with initial search and 53 texts were included in final analysis. Three main themes were identified; recruitment of PWLE; engagement of PWLE; and navigating power dynamics of PWLE working alongside representatives of community organizations. Within recruitment, subthemes of CAB selection strategies, challenges, and successes were reported. Within engagement, subthemes of CAB management, CAB roles and activities, capacity strategies, challenges, successes, and compensation of members were reported. Lastly, within PWLE working alongside organizational representatives, subthemes of challenges and mitigation strategies were reported. We emphasize the importance of relationship building and mutual respect within the CAB; clearly defined roles and responsibilities to reduce role confusion and tokenism; appropriate compensation, whether monetary or otherwise, bi-directional capacity building; and the use of a cultural insider whilst establishing/operating a CAB.

conclusionsWe identified key factors that contribute to the effective recruitment and engagement of PWLE on CABs in the context of CBPR. This scoping review, completed by a CBPR group, identified key factors that can be utilized by other CBPR groups to better engage PWLE on CABs. Further research is needed to demonstrate the proposed best practices’ influence on CAB effectiveness.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationHumansCo-designCommunity Advisory BoardCommunity based participatory researchLived experienceScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40682074
PMCPMC12273312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.