Achieving inclusive research priority-setting: what do people with lived experience and the public think is essential?

A decolonial and liberation lens to social justice research: Upholding promises for diverse, inclusive, and equitable psychological science

In the face of harmful disparities and inequities, it is crucial for researchers to critically reflect on methodologies and research practices that can dismantle systems of oppression, accommodate pluralistic realities, and facilitate opportunities for all communities to thrive. Historically, knowledge production for the sciences has followed a colonial and colonizing approach that continues to silence and decontextualize the lived experiences of people of color. This article acknowledges the harm to people of color communities in the name of research and draws from decolonial and liberation frameworks to advance research practices and psychological science toward equity and social justice. In this article, we propose a lens rooted in decolonial and liberatory principles that researchers can use to rethink and guide their scientific endeavors and collaborations toward more ethical, equitable, inclusive, respectful, and pluralistic research practices. The proposed lens draws on literature from community psychology and our lessons learned from field studies with historically marginalized Latinx communities to highlight six interrelated tensions that are important to address in psychological research from a decolonizing and liberatory lens. These interrelated tensions involve conflicting issues of (a) power, (b) competence, (c) practices and theories, (d) rationale, (e) approach, and (f) trust. In addition, seven practical recommendations and examples for decolonial and liberatory research practices are outlined. The recommendations can assist researchers in identifying ways to ameliorate and address the interrelated tensions to give way to decolonial and liberatory research practices. Community and social justice scientists have the responsibility to decommission oppressive research practices and engage in decolonization and liberation toward a valid, ethical, equitable, and inclusive psychological science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Beyond the 5-year recovery mark: Perspectives of researchers with lived and living experience on public engagement and discourse

There has been growing attention toward including people with lived and living experience (PWLLE) with substance use, substance use disorders, and recovery in public-facing activities. The goals of including PWLLE in sharing their perspectives often include demonstrating that recovery is possible, destigmatizing and humanizing people who have substance use experiences, and leveraging their lived experience to illuminate a particular topic or issue. Recently, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing issued a set of guidelines entitled, "Protecting Individuals with Lived Experience in Public Disclosure," which included a "Lived Experience Safeguard Scale." We offer the present commentary to bolster some of the ideas presented by the Council and to articulate suggested changes to this guidance, with the goal of reducing unintentional gatekeeping and stigma. Specifically, we offer that there are numerous problems with the recommendation to only invite people who have "five or more years of sustained recovery" to contribute to public discourse. The idea of perceived stability after five years of abstinence is not new to us or the field. We suggest that this idea excludes people who have experienced the present rapidly changing substance use landscape, people who have briefly returned to use, some young people, and people with living experience who also can valuably contribute to public discourse. We offer alternative guidelines to the National Council for Mental Wellbeing and others seeking to promote practices that are inclusive to the diversity of PWLLE.

Wonderings to research questions: Engaging patients in long COVID research prioritization within a learning health system

Background

An integral component of research within a learning health system is patient engagement at all stages of the research process. While there are well-defined best practices for engaging with patients on predetermined research questions, there is little specific methodology for engaging patients at the stage of research question formation and prioritization. Further, with an emerging disease such as Long COVID, population-specific strategies for meaningful engagement have not been characterized.

Methods

The COVID-19 Focused Virtual Patient Engagement Studio (CoVIP studio) was a virtual panel created to facilitate patient-centered studies surrounding the effects of long-term COVID ("Long COVID") also known as post-acute SARS-CoV-2 syndrome (PASC). A diverse group of panelists was recruited and trained in several different areas of knowledge, competencies, and abilities regarding research and Long COVID. A three-step approach was developed that consisted of recording panelists' broad wonderings to generate patient-specific research questions.

Results

The "wonderings" discussed in panelists' training sessions were analyzed to identify specific populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and timeframes (PICOT) elements, which were then used to create a survey to identify the elements of greatest importance to the panel. Based on the findings, 10 research questions were formulated using the PICOT format. The panelists then ranked the questions on perceived order of importance and distributed one million fictional grant dollars between the five chosen questions in the second survey. Through this stepwise prioritization process, the project team successfully translated panelists' research wonderings into investigable research questions.

Conclusion

This methodology has implications for the advancement of patient-engaged prioritization both within the scope of Long COVID research and in research on other rare or emerging diseases.

'We have so much to offer': Community members' perspectives on autism research

LAY ABSTRACT

Autism research is changing. Autistic activists and researchers want Autistic people in the community to have more of a say about what is researched and how. But we haven't asked people in the community what they think. This study used the information obtained from 55 community members, including Autistic people, their families, and professionals working with Autistic people, from an existing study on their priorities for autism research. We re-looked at what was said to see if we could understand community members' views and experiences of autism research. People agreed strongly that research can play a powerful role in shaping good Autistic lives. They also felt that big changes were needed for research to do this. Some of these changes were that researchers should stop thinking about autism narrowly and in a negative way, where Autistic people are seen as the problem. Researchers need to think more about how to improve systems, experiences and how other people respond to Autistic people. They also want the autism community to be more involved in what is researched and how it is researched. The findings from our study here highlight the potential for research to be positive when Autistic people and their families are listened to, approached with understanding, and are respected and valued as individuals in the research process.

Is the Invisibility of Dementia a Super-Power or a Curse? A Reflection on the SUNshiners' Questionnaire into the Public Understanding of Dementia as an Invisible Disability: A User-Led Research Project

The SUNshiners group includes people in the early stages of dementia with an interest in dementia activism and research. The group found that despite the growing awareness of invisible disabilities, there is very limited research into the pros and cons of the invisibility of dementia. Our paper explores the SUNshiners research which stemmed from varied individual experiences of disclosing diagnoses. The group designed and developed a short survey to explore what the public knew about dementia and what they thought about the invisibility of dementia. A mixture of open- and closed-ended questions were used to gain meaningful data. A total of 347 people completed the survey (315 online and 32 paper-based), which was then co-analysed. The findings suggest that the majority of the public felt that the invisibility of dementia was negative; that knowing someone had dementia when first meeting them would be beneficial; that people living with dementia should maintain the right to vote; and that people living with dementia do not automatically require a consistent, regular carer. Common themes from the open-ended answers included capacity, severity of dementia, and access to support. The findings support the disclosure of dementia diagnosis; however, more action is needed to tackle stigmatised views, particularly as the SUNshiners felt that people do not have enough dementia education to support a positive disclosure experience. They shared their experiences of the group and the project's benefits, but also the losses they have faced. Our paper aims to be as accessible as possible.

The INSIGHT project: reflections on the co-production of a quality recognition programme to showcase excellence in public involvement in health and care research

BACKGROUND

The quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in healthcare research varies considerably and is frequently tokenistic. We aimed to co-produce the Insight | Public Involvement Quality Recognition and Awards programme, based on the UK Standards for Public Involvement (UKSPI) alongside an incremental scale designed by Expert Citizens (a lived experience-led community group), to incentivise and celebrate continuous improvement in PPI.

METHODS

We used Task and Finish Groups (19/44 [43%] public contributor membership) to co-produce the programme which we piloted in three organisations with different healthcare research models. We used surveys and review sessions to capture learning and reflections.

RESULTS

We co-created: (1) A Quality descriptor matrix comprising four incremental quality levels (Welcoming, Listening, Learning, Leading) for each UKSPI standard. (2) An assessment framework including guidance materials, self-assessment form and final report template. (3) An assessor training package. (4) The quality awards event format and nomination form. These materials were modified based on pilot-site feedback. Of survey respondents: 94.4% felt they had made at least 'Some' personal contribution (half said 'Quite a lot'/'A great deal'), 88.9% said they were 'Always'/'Often' able to express their views freely and, 100% stated the programme would have 'A lot of impact'/'Quite a bit of impact'. During the project, we identified the importance of taking time to explain project aims and contributor roles, adapting to the needs of individual contributors and, using smaller bespoke sessions outside the main Task and Finish Groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We co-produced and piloted a quality recognition programme to incentivise and celebrate continuous quality improvement in PPI. One public contributor stated, "I feel strongly that the Insight framework and awards will raise awareness of the [public involvement] work going on in many community settings. [It] is likely to result in better sharing of positive practice, incentivising research groups of any size to start work or to improve the quality of [PPI] could be one of the main benefits. I'm excited that if this initiative takes off, regionally and then in the longer term nationally, it could be a significant step in advancing the [public] voice."

Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects.

METHOD

A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach-frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness -participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering-data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities-methods to finalise priorities.

RESULTS

In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research.

CONCLUSION

Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects.

How should communities be meaningfully engaged (if at all) when setting priorities for biomedical research? Perspectives from the biomedical research community

BACKGROUND

There is now rising consensus that community engagement is ethically and scientifically essential for all types of health research. Yet debate continues about the moral aims, methods and appropriate timing in the research cycle for community engagement to occur, and whether the answer should vary between different types of health research. Co-design and collaborative partnership approaches that involve engagement during priority-setting, for example, are common in many forms of applied health research but are not regular practice in biomedical research. In this study, we empirically examine the normative question: should communities be engaged when setting priorities for biomedical research projects, and, if so, how and for what purpose?

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 members of the biomedical research community from the UK, Australia, and African countries who had engaged communities in their work. Interview data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Our study shows that biomedical researchers and community engagement experts strongly support engagement in biomedical research priority-setting, except under certain circumstances where it may be harmful to communities. However, they gave two distinct responses on what ethical purpose it should serve-either empowerment or instrumental goals-and their perspectives on how it should achieve those goals also varied. Three engagement approaches were suggested: community-initiated, synergistic, and consultative. Pre-engagement essentials and barriers to meaningful engagement in biomedical research priority-setting are also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers initial evidence that meaningful engagement in priority-setting should potentially be defined slightly differently for biomedical research relative to certain types of applied health research and that engagement practice in biomedical research should not be dominated by instrumental goals and approaches, as is presently the case.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in healthcare education and thesis work: the first step towards PPIE knowledgeable healthcare professionals

In this Communication article, we share experiences of collaborating with members of the public during health education. We aim to inspire bachelor, masters and PhD students to engage with patients and the public during their undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate thesis work and to inspire educators to collaborate with patient and public involvement/engagement to develop and deliver teaching and offer their students opportunities to engage with patients and the public. We argue that when patients and the public are included in educational projects, such engagement will be an easier task once students graduate. We argue that including patients and the public in educational project work and encouraging reflections with a person with lived experience benefits students in terms of understanding the importance of reflection and validation, setting positive precedence for their future careers.

Meeting ethical challenges with authenticity when engaging patients and families in end-of-life and palliative care research: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Delivering high quality, patient- and family-centered care depends upon high quality end-of-life and palliative care (EOLPC) research. Engaging patients and families as advisors, partners, or co-investigators throughout the research lifecycle is widely regarded as critical to ensuring high quality research. Engagement is not only an ethical obligation, it also raises ethical challenges of its own. We conducted a qualitative study to understand ethical challenges and potential solutions when engaging patients and families in EOLPC research.

METHODS

We recruited and interviewed 20 clinical investigators and 22 patients or family caregivers through the Palliative Care Research Cooperative Group (PCRC). Interview transcripts were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory methodology. Analysis sought to identify ethical challenges and potential solutions, as well as to synthesize findings into practical recommendations tailored to engaging patients and families in EOLPC research.

RESULTS

Our study identified 8 ethical challenges considered unique to the EOLPC research context and 11 potential solutions to these challenges. The most frequently described ethical challenges included the need to minimize burdens of engagement for patients and caregivers, challenges of dealing with death and illness, and paternalism or "gatekeeping" (i.e., withholding the opportunity to participate from patients or caregivers). Investigators and patients or family caregivers conceptualized ethics challenges differently; several issues appeared to fall outside a traditional research ethics paradigm and more into the ethics of relationships. We synthesized these findings into 4 practical recommendations hypothesized to support authentic engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging patients and families in EOLPC research can raise unique ethical challenges. These challenges can be overcome to empower participation, minimize the unique burdens of EOLPC, and promote diversity. Whereas traditional research ethics tend to emphasize protecting research participants who may be vulnerable, an ethics approach based on authentic engagement that explores what it means for investigators and patients or family caregivers to be in a relationship may be needed. Future research is needed to explore this approach and test these recommendations in practice.

Canada's First Experience With a Patient-Adjudicated Cancer Research Grant Competition: A Case Study

Although patient partners have been part of grant review panels, they are rarely given decision-making authority and never given sole responsibility for determining what research to fund. In patient-oriented research, however, patient partners may be in the best position to determine what is needed and whether the proposed research will engage patients in meaningful ways. The objective of this case study was to demonstrate that patient partners can adjudicate patient-oriented research proposals without the inclusion of researcher/expert reviewers.

The future of disability research in Australia: protocol for a multi-phase research agenda-setting exercise

Background

For people with disabilities to live a good life, it is essential that funded research in health and social care addresses their interests, meets their needs, and fills gaps in our understanding of the impact that services, systems, and policies may have on them. Decisions about research funding should be based on an understanding of the research priorities of people with disabilities, their supporters and allies, disability researchers, service providers, and policy makers working in the field.

Objective

The aim of this protocol is to describe the research design and methods of a large-scale, disability research agenda–setting exercise conducted in 2021 in Australia.

Methods

The research agenda–setting exercise involves 3 integrated phases of work. In the first phase, a previous audit of disability research in Australia is updated to understand previous research and continuing gaps in the research. Building on this, the second phase involves consultation with stakeholders—people with disabilities and their supporters and family members, the disability workforce, and people working within services and connected sectors (eg, aging, employment, education, and housing), academia, and public policy. Data for the second phase will be gathered as follows: a national web-based survey; a consultation process undertaken through the government and nongovernment sector; and targeted consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, children with disabilities and their families, people with cognitive disability, and people with complex communication needs. The third phase involves a web-based survey to develop a research agenda based on the outcomes of all phases.

Results

We have started working on 2 parts of the research prioritization exercise. Through the research-mapping exercise we identified 1241 journal articles and book chapters (referred to as research papers) and 225 publicly available reports (referred to as research reports) produced over the 2018-2020 period. Data collection for the national survey has also been completed. We received 973 fully completed responses to the survey. Analysis of these data is currently underway.

Conclusions

This multi-method research agenda–setting study will be the first to provide an indication of the areas of health and social research that people across the Australian disability community consider should be prioritized in disability research funding decisions. Project results from all phases will be made publicly available through reports, open-access journal publications, and Easy Read documents.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/31126