ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Notes about me, without me: Research about me, without me.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn mental health services, documentation is dominated by providers who write clinical notes without the input of the individuals accessing the services. Although these notes are essential, they often exclude the voices and perspectives of those accessing services. We suggest that this one-sided approach can lead to feelings of alienation, loss of agency, and misrepresentation. MAIN BODY: Our commentary explores co-writing, an approach to documentation where both the provider and the person accessing services jointly contribute to the notes. Co-writing can include various formats, from typed notes to drawings or dictated content, reflecting a more inclusive process. We present co-writing not just as a practical innovation but as an ethical shift aligned with ethics of care and concepts of care. We propose that by inviting individuals to co-author their narratives, co-writing offers opportunities to challenge traditional power imbalances in mental health services and improve the accuracy, emotional relevance, and inclusivity of documentation. We also suggest and examine the limitations and challenges of implementing co-writing, such as provider resistance, time constraints, and ethical considerations around consent and confidentiality. Strategies such as professional training, mentorship, and clear guidelines are suggested to support sustainable implementation. Although co-writing is promoted as a collaborative documentation practice, our analysis reveals that the research underpinning it rarely involves people with lived experience leading or co-creating the research. We present a commentary that critically points out that gap and calls for the co-writing of the evidence base itself to inform practice.
conclusionWe suggest that co-writing clinical notes has the potential to transform mental health documentation from a provider-dominated task into a collaborative, empowering process. It offers a more ethical and accurate representation of individuals' experiences. We call for further research led by people with lived experience, and for the development of policies, training, and infrastructure that support the ethical integration of co-writing into mental health services.
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.