ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Square peg round hole: navigating operational and interdisciplinary challenges in a co-produced, community-based research partnership.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInclusive, community-based research is increasingly important for aligning academic work with real-world needs. This paper describes the challenges and successes of a research collaboration between academic, health service, and voluntary sector partners, working together to address nutrition and food waste for individuals with severe mental illness.
methodsThis reflective article reports a primary study evaluation of the process of a co-produced project aimed at developing a nutritious ready meal from surplus food to be distributed through Eco Shops, involving individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). A collaborative partnership was formed between a University, an NHS Foundation Trust, and a Voluntary Sector Organisation in the North-East of England. Data for this process evaluation were collected through a team questionnaire evaluating all aspects of the collaboration, including ethics, governance, and communication practices.
resultsWhile the overall project achieved positive outcomes, the collaborative research process included substantial challenges in ethical and governance alignment, collaborative working practices, and communication across diverse organisational cultures.
conclusionThis study highlights the need for flexible governance, clear communication protocols, and effective workload management in cross-sector collaborations. Insights emphasise adapting project frameworks to support interdisciplinary, community-focused research for successful, sustainable partnerships.
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.