SynthesisPsychological medicine2025
Facilitators of and barriers to patient and public involvement in mental health research within university settings: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How, why, for whom, and in what contexts organisational and team dynamics shape, and are shaped by, service user researchers in higher education mental health research centres: a realist review protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- How Lived Experience Advisory Groups Contribute to the Design and Conduct of Mental Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient and public involvement (PPI) increasingly features in the shaping, design, and conduct of mental health research. This review identifies and synthesizes evidence of barriers and facilitators of PPI in mental health research within university settings. The search strategy followed PRISMA guidance and involved keyword searches in eight peer reviewed databases, grey literature, hand searching two journals, requests to national mental health organizations, and backwards and forwards citation searching. We included primary mental health studies on patient and public involvement, with data on facilitators and barriers. Data were extracted capturing author, date and country of publication, study aim, participant and research team composition, data collection and analysis methods, and levels of PPI. Quality appraisal was conducted using the CASP Checklist for Qualitative Research, with an additional item on intersectionality. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis, before holding a peer-debriefing session with a lived experience working group. The final dataset included 51 articles that were either of a qualitative design or contained analyzed qualitative data. Barriers and facilitators were grouped around the following themes: the structure of the research environment, organizational culture, and individual needs. Good practice exists, but the wider research environment and power imbalances within universities constrain PPI. For PPI in mental health research to reach its full potential, the redistribution of power, building capacity for all, the provision of safe working environments, and widening inclusion in the research process are necessary. This review involved researchers with lived experience of mental ill health.
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.