ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Evaluation of Co-Production in Adolescent Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study From Born in Bradford.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCo-production is often viewed as best practice for involving the public in research, while measures such as sharing power, reciprocity, and relationship-building are seen as key guiding principles. However, implementing co-production and its underlying principles remains challenging, with limited evaluative work examining how these principles are applied in practice, particularly within large-scale studies and with young people. This study aimed to explore whether Born in Bradford's (BiB) co-production values and principles have been embedded in BiB Age of Wonder (AoW), a longitudinal study following over 20,000 Bradford teenagers through secondary school and into early adulthood.
methodsThis evaluation used a mixed-methods approach. Participants included parents, young people, teachers, and community members. Quantitative data was collected via an online survey (n = 79). Qualitative data was collected via four focus groups (n = 17). The survey and focus group topic guide were co-designed with young people, with questions designed to assess how well the principles and values of BiB's co-production strategy had been embedded in AoW. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the survey responses. Qualitative data was analysed using framework analysis.
resultsSurvey and focus group findings indicated that co-production group members mostly agreed or strongly agreed that the nine principles of co-production had been embedded in AoW. However, 'sharing power' and 'community engagement' were found to be areas that could be improved, with participants calling for earlier involvement in research design, clearer feedback loops, and outreach beyond existing groups.
conclusionsWe found evidence that the values and principles of co-production have been embedded in AoW co-production. Suggestions for improvement include shaping research agendas through earlier involvement, deeper engagement with schools and communities, and paid peer research posts. Future steps include (1) developing sustainable peer research strategies to deepen co-production, and (2) incorporating perspectives from diverse stakeholders including budget holders, facilitators, researchers and public contributors in future evaluations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in the study conceptualisation, methods development and implementation. The survey and focus group topic guide were co-designed with young people from BiB Age of Wonder co-production groups. Co-production group members were also involved as participants in the surveys and focus groups.
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.