ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2025
Dialogical meanderings - evaluation framework and learnings from stakeholder involvement in the co-design of a participatory systematic review.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternationally, systematic and other review studies are being increasingly conducted in participatory ways. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the involvement of various stakeholders in their early pre-protocol stages.
aimsGiven this shortage, this manuscript the participatory preparaton of a systematic participatory, mixed methods review on the reduction and discontinuation of antipsychotic medication.
methodsThe evaluation used both standardized assessments and a focus group to assess 1) the characteristics, knowledge backgrounds, and expertise of the different stakeholders involved, 2) the topics of discussions that were exchanged during the different participatory formats as well as 3) stakeholders' perceptions. DISCUSSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The various participatory activities involved both users/survivors and researchers with lived experience and/or academic expertise in the field of reduction and discontinuation of antipsychotic medication. They have laid the foundation for the development of the subsequent review design. The participatory exchange was implemented in rather non-directive ways, so that, next to these methodological decisions, a range of other topics could be discussed that iteratively contributed to shaping them. Overall, satisfaction with participation was high. It was concluded that the early phases of a review study are highly suitable for participatory engagement, laying the fundamental grounds for further research. Sufficient time should be provided to substantially anchor the future review design in the stakeholders' specific and diverse perspectives and positions. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team was collaboratively staffed by a portion of researchers who were also identified as users or survivors of psychiatric services. The different participatory formats involved a significant number and wide range of diverse stakeholders relevant to the research and practical field of the reduction and discontinuation of antipsychotic medication.
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.