Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41907825›Full record

ArticleInternational review of qualitative research : IRQR2025

Research Co-production Within Humanitarian Health: Reflections on Our Practice.

Michelle Lokot, Thurayya Zreik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International review of qualitative research : IRQR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michelle LokotLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4406-0166
Thurayya ZreikIndependent Consultant, Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5243-989X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research co-production is recognized as important for humanitarian health actors, as part of the growing drive towards localizing and decolonizing aid. Despite recognition that co-production is challenging to implement, reflexive accounts of co-production efforts remain limited. In this paper, we critically examine the role of co-production within a multi-partner research collaboration in Lebanon involving multiple academic, civil society and government-affiliated partners based in the UK and in Lebanon. Through interactive reflection sessions and interviews with research team partners, we document how co-production principles were embedded into our project, explore contextual factors influencing the collaboration, identify successes and challenges to co-production and identify future opportunities for research co-production. We find mixed understandings of co-production between team members and siloed efforts to co-produce within our partnership. We identify key challenges to co-production including contextual factors related to Lebanon and COVID-19, institutional power dynamics, budgets, difficulties in engaging service users and availability of stakeholders to co-produce, while mapping examples of successful co-production in our project. Our study emphasizes the importance of ensuring shared understandings of the scope of co-production at the outset of projects and suggest the collaborative analysis processes provide a key opportunity for researchers to embed co-production principles.

Indexed as

co-productionhumanitarianresearch

Identifiers

PMID41907825
PMCPMC13021073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.