Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A group of young people with experience of being in foster or residential care were invited to be involved in setting the question for a systematic review on a health-related topic, and to participate in all stages of the research.
Objectives: To present the review and describe how the young people were involved in all stages of the research. To consider the negative and positive impact of their involvement, on the review and on the researcher. To discuss how consumer involvement may be optimised without compromising on the review quality.
Methods: The systematic review followed standard systematic review methods, but most of the decisions were made in collaboration with the young people. The young people were given some research training, and decisions were made using closed and open voting, following group discussions. The protocol was developed from a template, containing open and closed questions. The researcher recorded all meetings and analysed the interaction and decisions made, using thematic analysis.
Results: The young people’s decision to address the effectiveness of educational support reflects a wider view of what constitutes health. They were successfully involved in developing the protocol, contributing to the searching and screening of 24% of all electronic hits. Their involvement in the critical appraisal of included studies and the synthesis was limited.
Conclusions: Young people can be involved in most stages of a systematic review, but such participation requires the researcher to think of creative methods for presenting what a systematic review is, and explaining some of the key principles of reviewing. Some young people preferred to provide advice on the framework of the review, whereas others took part in research activities.
Objectives: To present the review and describe how the young people were involved in all stages of the research. To consider the negative and positive impact of their involvement, on the review and on the researcher. To discuss how consumer involvement may be optimised without compromising on the review quality.
Methods: The systematic review followed standard systematic review methods, but most of the decisions were made in collaboration with the young people. The young people were given some research training, and decisions were made using closed and open voting, following group discussions. The protocol was developed from a template, containing open and closed questions. The researcher recorded all meetings and analysed the interaction and decisions made, using thematic analysis.
Results: The young people’s decision to address the effectiveness of educational support reflects a wider view of what constitutes health. They were successfully involved in developing the protocol, contributing to the searching and screening of 24% of all electronic hits. Their involvement in the critical appraisal of included studies and the synthesis was limited.
Conclusions: Young people can be involved in most stages of a systematic review, but such participation requires the researcher to think of creative methods for presenting what a systematic review is, and explaining some of the key principles of reviewing. Some young people preferred to provide advice on the framework of the review, whereas others took part in research activities.