ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2026
Let's Co! The how-to of working within a co-production framework to devise, design and execute collaborative multisite clinical trials.
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness without safety: a response to Duggan, Hardy, and Waller (2026).Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Iatrogenic Harm, Psychotherapy, and Eating Disorders: An Urgent Call to Action.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Iatrogenic harm and premature treatment discontinuation in eating disorders: a lived experience response to Wade and Schmidt (2026).Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Iatrogenic harm in eating disorder treatment: a lived experience-led call for epistemic justice and accountability.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Partnering with people with lived experience in eating disorder research: conceptual and practical considerations.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Gamified Assessment of Cognitive Impulsivity in Eating Disorders and Mental Ill-Health: Mixed Methods Study Incorporating Lived Experience Co-Design and Evaluation.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo document the steps undertaken in a full collaborative co-production design process undertaken between a group of lived experience, clinical and research collaborators to determine the selection and design of three large-scale, multisite, clinically focused studies (including two clinical trials) targeting eating disorders. This work formed part of a grant supporting the development of a National Centre for Research and Translation in Eating Disorders (AEDRTC) funded by the Australian Government. We highlight the phases and activities, principles and values that informed practice - as has been called for recently within the scientific community, in addition to emerging themes and lessons learnt. The paper aimed to contribute to the limited body of published literature on practical approaches to co-production in large-scale research studies and teams.
methodsWe undertook a 1-year full co-production process to collaboratively ideate, choose and design the research studies to be funded and conducted by a nationally-funded centre for research in eating disorders. RESULTS AND
conclusionThis manuscript documents all the key stages of the co-production process for the shared agenda setting, choice and design of the three complex research studies, including the establishment of governance and structure, novel IP clauses, processes and principles of shared ideation and collaborative design. We also discuss natural push and pull factors creating tension in a co-production process, reflecting on themes and learnings.
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.