ArticleInternational journal of population data science2025
Co-producing data-intensive research with an underserved group: a case study and evaluation identifying pathways to impact.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Co-production of research, where researchers and experts by experience work as equal partners throughout a research project, can improve the quality, relevance, implementation and impact of research. However, there is limited evidence on methods for successful co-production in data-intensive research with underserved groups. In partnership with the charity Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and a group of care experienced young people, the Administrative Data Research Centre Northern Ireland (ADRC NI) piloted and evaluated a co-production approach in a research project that used linked administrative data to examine the association between care experience and mental ill health and mortality. Objective: The aim of this paper is to report the impact of co-production using the pilot as a case study, and assess the mechanisms involved against published principles of co-production. Additionally, we consider if co-production in this context is a special case that warrants bespoke guidance. Methods: Two participatory workshops and three semi-structured 1-1 interviews were conducted to collect the perspectives of pilot participants. Deductive thematic analysis was used to sort data into three predetermined categories: 1) impact; 2) barriers; and 3) enablers. To formally assess pathways to implementing co-production and achieving impact, mechanisms were mapped against the five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) principles of co-production. Results: Positive impacts were identified for individuals, the research and organisations involved. Common barriers to co-production, like representativeness and resource constraints were identified, alongside challenges specific to data-intensive research, such as balancing power-sharing with data access constraints. Key enablers included genuine power sharing, valuing diverse knowledge, and partnership working. Special considerations needed to support successful co-production in this context include extra effort to achieve inclusion and address support needs. Partnerships with voluntary and community organisations support an inclusive, trauma-informed approach. Conclusion: This case study and evaluation can be utilised to support co-production with underserved groups in other data-intensive research contexts. Embedding co-production of data research with underserved groups will require changes to the broader research eco-system, including tailored guidance and resources, and funding partnerships rather than only pre-specified research projects.
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.