Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42431690›Full record

ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2026

Powering Up: a qualitative evaluation of the art and science of meaningful co-production for health equity.

Guddi Singh, Mary Salama, Hannah Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 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

3 authors.

Guddi SinghCentre of Public Policy Research, School of Education, Communication and Society, King's College London, London, UK guddi.singh@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3263-393X
Mary SalamaBirmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4432-9436
Hannah ZhuWHAM (Wellbring and Health Action Movement), London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent quality improvement (QI) efforts rarely engage with the structural conditions that sustain health inequalities.

methodsConducted in Birmingham and London, the study compared two creative co-production models:

resultsCreative co-production catalysed transformation through three mechanisms-

conclusionsMeaningful co-production is not a technical fix, but a moral and political practice grounded in

Indexed as

ArtHealth EquityQuality ImprovementAdolescentFemaleHumansLondonQualitative ResearchAdolescent HealthChild HealthEthicsHealth services researchQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID42431690
PMCPMC13358257

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.