Emerging practice in mental health patient and public involvement research advisory groups: a narrative review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The involvement of experts by experience in health research is a requirement from major funders across the world. One approach is Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) research advisory groups. This narrative review surfaced emerging practices in these groups based upon research papers that evaluated their own activities. METHODS: Papers published between 1/1/ 2014 and 10/1/2024 containing advisory group or related terms in the title or abstract were included. Articles had to focus on mental health and describe the evaluation of PPI research advisory groups. Articles where the PPI research advisory group was not the central focus were excluded. RESULTS: We identified 26 papers. Different terms were used and categorised as: Community Advisory Boards; Stakeholder Groups; PPI Groups; Young People Advisory Groups. There was a growth in literature over time; 42% of articles were published in 2023. Youth involvement was covered in 13 papers (50%). Many included a group member as an author (14 papers). Geographically most studies came from UK (n = 10), followed by Australia (n = 5) and Canada (n = 4). Our analysis identified nine themes and 123 sub-themes under: principles and values; group formation; running groups; facilitators; barriers; impacts on PPI group members; impacts on researchers; impacts on mental health research; recommendations. Commonalities in emerging practices included themes relating to: the importance of communication; an inclusive focus ensuring diversity of perspectives; choice and flexibility in how people are involved; creating safe spaces for involvement work; importance of detailed planning processes; and strategies to address power and hierarchy in research. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This field of practice is rapidly developing, building on well-established models such as Community Advisory Boards, underpinned by an epistemic justice value base. Our positionality led us to conclude more participatory evaluations from cross cultural partnerships delivering PPI research advisory groups would be beneficial to the mental health research ecosystem. This review would also benefit from an update to capture publications from 2024 onwards. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study was conceptualised and delivered by nine people working from a lived experience perspective in peer research and public involvement. All are authors on this paper.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».