ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Development and validation of the UserInvolve comprehensive toolkit for evaluating co-production in research: A guiding resource for researchers.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tensions as productive forces in coproduced mental health research: an explorative qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the evident trend in health research to emphasise co-production approaches, there is a lack of established, comprehensive and concrete strategies and evaluation methods to effectively guide and assess them. This project aimed to develop, validate, and test a toolkit designed to enhance and evaluate co-productions in mental health research. The toolkit includes practical evaluation tools, such as a structured questionnaire and tailored interview guides, to support the initiation of research projects and assess the involvement, process and impact of co-production efforts.
methodsThis project used a co-production approach with formative research design to develop a comprehensive toolkit for evaluating the process and impact of co-production in mental health research. Conducted between 2022 and 2024, the project involved iterative engagement with diverse stakeholder groups, providing a dynamic testbed for developing, validating, and field-testing the instruments. The paper outlines the four-phase process: (1) toolkit generation, (2) validation, (3) field-testing, and (4) completion, detailing how the co-production approach shaped the toolkit's design, relevance, usability, and rigor.
resultsThe result of this project is a structured, practical, and comprehensive co-production evaluation toolkit designed specifically for mental health research, potentially involving a wide range of partnerships. The toolkit includes a project initiation guide, a process-oriented survey and interview-guide for mid- and post-project evaluations, and an impact-focused post-project group interview guide.
conclusionsThe findings address a critical gap in mental health research by developing a structured, practical, and comprehensive co-production evaluation toolkit. The toolkit offers comprehensive strategies for evaluating involvement and both the processes and impacts of co-production throughout a project's lifecycle.
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.