Barriers and enablers to implementing capacity-strengthening initiatives for public and patient involvement in mental health research: a scoping review protocol informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasingly recognised as a moral and ethical imperative, necessary to increase the relevance and effectiveness of translation of research findings. Despite policy mandates and growing evidence of its benefits, PPI implementation in mental health research remains inconsistent. Little attention has been given to the state of scientific knowledge on PPI capacity strengthening in mental health research that can support more meaningful implementation. The aims of this scoping review are to: describe the content, implementation process, and theoretical underpinnings of PPI capacity-strengthening initiatives in mental health research; identify quantitative outcome measures and outcomes used to evaluate the initiatives' impact on PPI contributors, research processes, and policy; and map barriers and enablers to the initiatives' implementation. Methods: This scoping review will follow JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Sources will include peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, and organisational materials describing training or skill-building initiatives for adult PPI contributors in mental health research. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, supplemented by hand-searching, targeted internet searches, and stakeholder consultation. Data extraction will capture descriptive details, initiative content, outcomes, and contextual factors, with barriers and enablers categorised according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. Conclusion: This review will provide the first comprehensive synthesis of capacity-strengthening initiatives for PPI contributors in mental health research. Findings will inform the development of a co-designed blueprint for capacity-strengthening for PPI contributors, and progress broader efforts to embed lived experience expertise and general public perspectives equitably within mental health research systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.310 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".