Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42333050›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Embedding Multiperspective Reflections in Co-Producing a Training Intervention for Care Home Staff: Understanding Group Members' Journeys and Impacts.

Tamara Backhouse, Scarlett Fountain, Peter Davis, Peta Cremer, Anne Francis, Linda Adams, Peter Jackson, Michelle Kiddell, Katie Fray, Gabby Meadows and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

12 authors.

Tamara BackhouseSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8194-4174
Scarlett FountainSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Peter Davis
Peta CremerCavell Court Care Home, Care UK, Norwich, UK.
Anne Francis
Linda AdamsCavell Court Care Home, Care UK, Norwich, UK.
Peter JacksonCavell Court Care Home, Care UK, Norwich, UK.
Michelle KiddellCavell Court Care Home, Care UK, Norwich, UK.
Katie FrayCavell Court Care Home, Care UK, Norwich, UK.
Gabby Meadows
Revathy MadhavCavell Court Care Home, Care UK, Norwich, UK.
Anne KillettSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) 303609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-production can be used to develop research, resources or interventions that are relevant for the groups they are co-produced with. We co-produced a training intervention to improve personal care assistance for people with dementia living in care homes. We aimed to reflect on the process to learn more about the co-production journeys of all group members and impacts.

methodsA co-production group comprised of five care home staff, two relatives of care home residents, two researchers and a public involvement relative/researcher met at the university for 2 h a week, 10 times over an 11-week period. A care home resident and relative advised the process. We recorded co-production experiences by each contributing weekly reflections. We used the model of small group development to map out different co-production journeys.

resultsCare home staff, relatives and researchers had different journeys throughout the co-production process. Alongside the production of the training intervention, many positive and some negative impacts were identified. Relationships developed, members used and extended existing skills, and new learning, confidence and growth occurred. However, researchers found the process intense, care home staff had to catch up on missed work and one relative felt inhibited at times.

conclusionGaining multiperspective reflections from group members throughout co-production has produced new learning about how the process can impact people and groups differently. We share our processes, challenges and facilitators which can inform researchers planning co-production. When co-producing with care staff, consideration should be given to reduce potential negative impacts on social care settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The wider study of which the co-production was part has a lived experience advisory group, hosted by a local care home, who advise 3-monthly on the design of the study, issues to be addressed, processes of research, documents and findings. The co-production presented in this article involved five care home staff, two relatives of care home residents and a relative/researcher who is the lived experience lead for the wider study. The co-production process had two advisors: a care home resident and a relative of a care home resident who met in one-to-one meetings with a researcher, their ideas and suggestions and those of a previous stakeholder consultation were fed into the main co-production group.

Indexed as

DementiaHealth PersonnelNursing HomesCognitive ReflectionFamilyGroup DynamicsHumansNursing Home ResidentsSocial Groupcare homecollaborationco‐productionpowerreflectiontraining

Identifiers

PMID42333050
PMCPMC13287314

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.