Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41913291›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

From tokenism to transformation: lessons from the TOGETHER study for building inclusive and equitable research.

Anita Mehay, Leandra Box, Karlet Manning, Annemarie Lodder, Trupti Balkrishna Patel, Donna Clutterbuck, Jabeer Butt, Richard G Watt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Anita MehaySchool of Health & Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. Anita.Mehay@citystgeorges.ac.uk.
Leandra BoxRace Equality Foundation, Deane House Studios, 27 Greenwood Place, London, NW5 1LB, UK. Leandra@racefound.org.uk.
Karlet ManningPublic Involvement Contributor, London, UK.
Annemarie LodderSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, White City Campus, 90 Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK.
Trupti Balkrishna PatelSciencewise, Oxford House, Derbyshire Street, London, E2 6HG, UK.
Donna ClutterbuckSchool of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Jabeer ButtRace Equality Foundation, Deane House Studios, 27 Greenwood Place, London, NW5 1LB, UK.
Richard G WattDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (Public Health Research Programme) NIHR-PHR: 16/122/35
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChildren’s health in the UK is in decline, with widening inequities disproportionately affecting racially and socially minoritised families. These same communities are often excluded from research, compromising both fairness and scientific validity. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) has been promoted as a mechanism to address exclusion, but in practice it can replicate existing inequalities. There is limited evidence on what inclusive research looks like in practice. This paper reflects on the TOGETHER study—a large, multi-site randomised controlled trial of the Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) parenting programme—exploring the strategies and processes that supported equitable engagement.

methodsWe used a reflective, retrospective case approach informed by: (i) descriptive analysis of trial baseline data (recruitment, retention, participant demographics); (ii) analysis of five years of study meeting minutes; and (iii) two facilitated reflective workshops with parent advisory groups, the lived-experience co-investigator, and the Race Equality Foundation (third-sector partner).

resultsThe trial successfully recruited 674 parents across 34 programmes, meeting 100% of the target. The sample was both ethnically and socially diverse: 65% of participants identified as Black, Asian, mixed or other minoritised ethnicities; nearly half reported a first language other than English; and over half live with household incomes below £20,000. Attrition rates were 28% at post-intervention and 30% at six-month follow-up. Six key enablers were identified: (1) lived experience leadership through a co-investigator; (2) public involvement via local Parent Advisory Groups (3) relational partnerships with community organisations; (4) multilingual community researchers supporting linguistically and culturally inclusive data collection (5) strategic support from a third sector organisation, the Race Equality Foundation, and (6) investing in inclusion through dedicated budgets, resources, and visible, supportive leadership. These enablers helped ensure high recruitment, strong retention, and meaningful participation with families often excluded from research.

conclusionsThe TOGETHER study demonstrates that inclusive research is possible when lived experience, community voices, and third-sector expertise are embedded and resourced from the outset. Inclusion required investment of time, money, and infrastructure, as well as leadership that valued relationships and reflexivity and researchers positioned not as detached observers but as relational actors within participants lived contexts. Our reflections highlight the potential and the tensions of embedding equity in research, offering practical insights for researchers, funders, and institutions seeking to move beyond tokenism towards transformation.

Indexed as

Community engagementEDIEquityHealth inequalitiesInclusionParentingPPIEPublic involvementRCTThird sector

Identifiers

PMID41913291
PMCPMC13162414

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.