Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41036512›Full record

ArticleHumanities & social sciences communications2025

Exploring similarities and differences in how researchers and young people understand key terms in youth mental-health research.

Raginie Duara, Georgia Pavlopoulou, Siobhan Hugh-Jones, Nicola Shaughnessy, Ruth Herbert, Sylvan Baker, Emma Williams, Edmund Sonuga-Barke, Kamaldeep Bhui, Anna Mankee-Williams and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Humanities & social sciences communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Raginie DuaraUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Georgia PavlopoulouUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
Siobhan Hugh-JonesUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Nicola ShaughnessyUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
Ruth HerbertCity St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Sylvan BakerRoyal Central School of Speech and Drama, London, United Kingdom.
Emma WilliamsUniversity of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Edmund Sonuga-BarkeKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kamaldeep BhuiUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Anna Mankee-WilliamsFalmouth University, Falmouth, United Kingdom.
Paul CookeUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A lack of a shared understanding of key terms is acknowledged as a significant barrier to interdisciplinary research. This paper examines the ways in which a broadly interdisciplinary team of academics and youth co-researchers involved in mental health research interpreted a number of research and mental health terms that are central to their work in order to understand conceptual differences in how different stakeholder groups approach these terms. Data was collected in four phases (interviews, written responses, and two participatory 'living labs') and was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results revealed a wide disparity in the way participants understood key terms (including: 'research', 'data', 'loneliness', 'safe space' and 'resilience'). Our study highlights the need for more inclusive approaches to mental health research, where diverse perspectives and lived experiences inform both methodology and practice from the outset. In conclusion we suggest a new framework (the EQUITY framework) as a tool to operationalise these findings.

Indexed as

Health humanitiesPsychology

Identifiers

PMID41036512
PMCPMC12479358

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.