ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Evaluation of a 'Research Methods' Training Course for Novice Lived Experience Researchers.
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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe training of lived experience researchers (LERs) for involvement in research design and conduct is a key principle to its success. However, little is known about what research methods training is acceptable and beneficial to novice LERs.
methodsA training evaluation using a slightly modified version of the Training Acceptability Rating Scale (TARS), and a concluding stakeholder engagement workshop. Responses to the quantitative items were summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were coded using content analysis. RESULTS/
findingsThe trainees rated the overall training favourably (median overall TARS = 54/63; median acceptability = 31/36; median perceived impact = 23/27), but there was slight variation between sessions. There were six qualitative themes: valued learning format; valuing research knowledge; valued the centring of lived experience; gaps in training provision; more lived experience research focussed; and consider further support of LERs.
conclusionsThe training was found to be acceptable and beneficial, with trainees particularly valuing lived experience facilitation, case studies and tailored content. Trainees suggested the training could be improved by addressing theoretical, existential and skills gaps, and by making it more lived experience research focussed throughout. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This training evaluation and engagement workshop project was developed and overseen by a long-term service user with lived experience of mental distress. The workshop topic guide was co-designed with four people with lived experience, who were also involved in data analysis and co-constructed the findings. Finally, this paper concludes with a commentary on this study provided by a trainee with lived experience.
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.