ArticleBMJ open2026
Realist review protocol on user involvement in complex interventions in health and social care research among populations experiencing exclusion.
Article in BMJ 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUser involvement is important for improving accessibility, quality and equity in health and social care research. However, the specific mechanisms by which it contributes to, or detracts from intervention outcomes are unclear, particularly for populations experiencing exclusion and health and social inequities in high-income countries. This realist review aims to understand and describe key mechanisms of user involvement in complex interventions in health and social care research among populations experiencing exclusion in high-income countries. Specifically, we will explore how, why, for whom and under what circumstances user involvement contributes to complex interventions in health and social care research among populations experiencing exclusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a six-step realist review: (1) clarifying the scope, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting and appraising sources, (4) extracting and organising data, (5) synthesising data and (6) refining the synthesis. We will systematically review and synthesise relevant sources from academic databases and grey literature. Workshops will be held with experts who have lived experience of exclusion and/or professionals working in inclusion health to gather feedback and refine the findings. A group of external academic experts in the field will also be consulted. Following Pawson and Tilley's iterative approach, data will be extracted, analysed and synthesised into explanatory theoretical findings and reported in accordance with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses Evolving Standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this study as it is a review of published literature. Our overall dissemination strategy will be developed in collaboration with the experts who have lived experience of exclusion, as well as three professionals working in inclusion health. Findings will be shared with these expert contributors and disseminated through various channels, including a peer-reviewed publication, lay summary report and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251046835.
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.