ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
The moment of youth: learning from youth-led research on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in Malawian and Zambian settings.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch about young people in lower- and middle-income countries is seldom done by young people themselves. Engaging youth in designing and conducting research that concerns their well-being can improve their skills and make the findings more relevant to young people’s needs. This commentary outlines five lessons learned in the process of conducting a youth-led research study in Malawi and Zambia on youth sexual and reproductive health and rights for the Break Free! programme. Reflections on the challenges and successes encountered by the research team during this study were documented via notes. A reference group of youth advocates was set up to guide the study, and an evaluation was conducted with them about their experience. Data from both these sources were thematically organised and discussed between the research team. LESSONS LEARNED: The commentary outlined that meaningfully involving youth in the study methods, not only as participants but also with a youth-led research team and a youth reference group enhanced the quality of study findings. The combination of seasoned youth researchers working with emerging youth researchers from prior collaborations laid a good foundation to implement the study and was identified as a success factor. Fostering a positive working culture that centred peer-to-peer support and the expertise of researchers in and from the ‘Global South’ was a key success in having a fair partnership that shifted power. However, time taken for mentoring, and knowledge exchange, between youth researchers and with the youth reference group was under-estimated and under-budgeted and an adaptable approach to time and resources allowed the research team to address these challenges. Lastly, the support of an established institution was instrumental in the conceptualization and execution of the study and functioned as a pre-condition for success.
conclusionThe lessons outlined in the commentary highlights the added value of engaging youth in all stages of the research cycle and can offer food for thought for future researchers looking to adopt this approach. While youth-led research may not be suited to every context, its principles of equity and participation can transform both the young participants and the research process.
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.