ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Creating a collaborative and impactful research environment: community partner reflections on the DeStress-II study.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement and engagement can improve the relevance and impact of research yet 'impact' is often framed narrowly around study findings rather than the experiences of those involved. Understanding how involvement affects individuals is important, particularly in areas such as mental health where there is significant potential for power differentials within the research process. The DeStress-II project co-developed a training resource to help primary care practitioners support people experiencing poverty-related mental distress. Community Partners with lived experience were integral to the project, contributing to training delivery, online resource co-production, and implementation analysis. This paper explores what supported their sustained engagement and the personal and collective impacts of involvement.
methodsA reflective evaluation drawing on two focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews with ten Community Partners from three UK regions.
resultsFindings highlight the importance of extending the notion of impact beyond traditional boundaries of academic research to also consider individual and collective patient and public benefits of involvement. Meaningful involvement extends research impact beyond outputs to encompass personal growth, confidence, and a lasting sense of community. Key enablers included: (i) a dedicated Community Connector role; (ii) feeling part of and valued within the research team; and (iii) the development and quality of relationships.
conclusionsUnderstanding how patient and public involvement in research is experienced broadens how impact is conceptualised. Dedicated facilitation, time, and resources are essential to create inclusive environments that support mutual learning and positive personal outcomes for people 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.