ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Depression detectives: piloting a methodology for online co-produced research.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncorporating lived experiences into research is claimed to enhance depth, relevance, real-world applicability and equity. However, data scientists have been relatively slow to adopt this approach. The "Depression Detectives" (DD) project aimed to bridge this gap by connecting Big Data researchers with individuals with lived experience of depression. Depression is both a significant global health issue and a deeply personal experience. Feelings of isolation often drive people to seek information and support online, making this project's digital presence particularly relevant.
methodsBuilding on methods developed in Parenting Science Gang, we conducted a co-production project within a private Facebook group from February to September 2021. Seventy individuals with depression and thirty researchers participated in discussions and chose a research question. Together, they designed and implemented a survey and focus groups exploring health-seeking behaviours and under-reporting of depressive episodes to GPs. Concurrently, a PhD student analysed UK Biobank data for discrepancies in depression reporting. We used multiple methods to evaluate the process and participant experiences. CO-PRODUCED RESEARCH
resultsIn the UK Biobank, 67% of individuals whose questionnaire responses indicated depression had no coded GP record of it. Similarly, 84% of DD participants reported visiting their GP for half or fewer of their depressive episodes. Key barriers included stigma, dissatisfaction with healthcare, and a preference for non-medical interventions. These alternatives were perceived as better addressing the root causes of depression. EVALUATION
resultsParticipants described the research process as rewarding, noting it broadened their understanding both of depression and their own experiences. Researchers valued the insights gained, but found the process demanding.
conclusionsThis project demonstrates the value of incorporating lived experiences into mental health research through co-production. Lived experience participants contributed unique perspectives that differed from those of university researchers. By combining these insights with big data analysis, the project generated findings that better reflect real-life experiences, enhancing their applicability to personalised mental health care. Participants found the process to be 'quasi-therapeutic' and advocated for healthcare systems to adopt diverse, holistic treatments for depression. These findings support inclusive policy development and underscore the importance of epistemic justice and democratic knowledge production.
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.