ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
A hybrid model for youth engagement in adolescent health studies: insights from the teen research advisors program at a Midwestern pediatric Academic Medical Center in the United States.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Engaging adolescents in research ensures studies are relevant, ethical, and beneficial while fostering authentic and applicable findings. Traditional in-person advisory boards face barriers to equitable participation, highlighting the need for innovative, flexible models tailored to specific research programs and individuals with lived experience. The primary aim of this article is to describe a novel hybrid youth advisory board suitable for informing ongoing operations of a research program while supporting youths' education and career exploration. Our secondary aim was to evaluate initial impact over the first 2 years of the program (2023-2024). Methods: Adolescents aged 12-21 with prior involvement in mental health research at Children's Mercy Kansas City (Kansas City, United States) were invited to join a hybrid teen advisory board. The advisory board structure and priorities were continuously shaped by youth. Participation included monthly discussion boards, quarterly huddles, enrichment events, and one-on-one mentorship for personal and professional development. Through a mixed-methods approach, initial program evaluation assessed alignment with the Advisor-defined objectives, program engagement, and bidirectional impact through thematic qualitative analysis and quantitative metrics. Results: During the first 2 years, 11 youth (aged 13-20 years) participated as Teen Research Advisors (TRA) for an average of 12 ± 8 months. For any given monthly online, asynchronous discussion ( Conclusion: We present a novel hybrid youth advisory board that reduces barriers to participation, fosters professional development, and substantially impacts the research program. Youth were highly engaged in online and in-person activities as well as collaboration synchronously and asynchronously. This model offers a scalable blueprint for engaging diverse adolescent populations in research, paving the way for more inclusive and impactful studies across disciplines.
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.