ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
The engagement of people with lived experiences in substance use research.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community Advisory Board Members Speak Out: Insights From an Opioid Overdose Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- The community representative council of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network: Co-design and early impact.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- Guiding principles for clinical research on substance use disorders in rural communities.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- The measurement of harm reduction goals and outcomes for substance use: Current state and future directions.Journal of prevention and health promotion · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: People with lived experiences (PWLE) are underrepresented in research engagement, however their involvement can significantly boost the relevance and impact of research. Questions concerning the credibility and trustworthiness of PWLE researchers by traditional and positivist researchers have been identified. Having been associated with substance use of questionable legality and related substance use activities, PWLE researchers face stigma and are deemed to lack the trustworthiness that serious research entails. Current literature on PWLE found a dearth of knowledge on the definitions and conceptualizations of PWLE in research, which this paper attempts to partially address. Methods: Issues surrounding the trustworthiness of PWLE in substance use research were investigated, along with accounts of involving PWLE at different phases of the research process. Findings: People with lived experiences have been undervalued as researchers compared to other positivist counterparts despite advocating against marginalization and oppressive practices. They offer in-depth, meaningful contributions to research involving phenomena that they have experienced and were found to provide insights that other non-PWLE researchers overlooked. Moreover, engaging PWLE in research is not only beneficial for research processes and outcomes but is also empowering for PWLE themselves. Conclusion: A guide to maintaining trustworthiness and a description of PWLE contributions to research processes are provided.
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.