ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
How Lived Experience Advisory Groups Contribute to the Design and Conduct of Mental Health Research.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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
introductionThe positive impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) on the relevance, accessibility and acceptability of mental health research is well documented. Much of this reporting comes from researchers; less is known about the perspectives of PPI contributors. We are interested in exploring which issues people with lived experience (LE) prioritise when reviewing mental health research, with a view to identifying some of the underlying factors which facilitate or hinder those impacts.
methodsWe conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of meeting minutes reviewing 233 studies from two PPI research advisory groups supported by the Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre over a period of 8 years.
resultsOur results foreground participants' experiences and show that PPI contributors want a greater emphasis on relational ethics within mental health research practice. We have identified key issues that have the potential to have a positive effect on the whole research cycle. These include ensuring fully inclusive research designs and practices, having transparent processes and increasing researcher reflexivity regarding power dynamics, stigma and participants' experiences.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the potential that PPI has to supplement existing ethical processes and positively impact research processes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of mental distress were involved throughout the study, including study design, data collection, synthesis and authorship.
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.