↓ Skip to main content

Opportunities and challenges in involving people with lived experience of inclusion health as co-researchers in palliative and end of life research: a rapid review and thematic synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Opportunities and challenges in involving people with lived experience of inclusion health as co-researchers in palliative and end of life research: a rapid review and thematic synthesis
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40900-023-00436-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie Crooks, Kate Flemming, Caroline Shulman, Briony Hudson

Abstract

Co-research is a collaborative approach to research, promoting involvement of individuals with lived experience of a research area as experts by experience. Recently, the importance of co-research within palliative and end of life care (PEoLC) has been highlighted, yet few recommendations exist regarding best practice for involving inclusion health groups (i.e., groups that are socially excluded, typically experiencing multiple disadvantages that contribute to poor health outcomes). To identify and synthesise qualitative literature outlining barriers and facilitators for involving four inclusion health groups (individuals with lived experience of: homelessness, substance use disorder, incarceration or exchanging sex for money) in PEoLC research, from the perspectives of both the researchers and individuals with lived experience. This report is a rapid review with thematic synthesis methodology. Three electronic databases were searched (2012-30th August 2022). Thematic synthesis was used to generate themes across qualitative studies. Three qualitative studies were eligible for inclusion. Two involved individuals with lived experience of incarceration, and one lived experience of homelessness. No papers outlined best-practice guidance for co-research; all offered reflections on the co-research process. Challenges for involvement included: facilitating appropriate reimbursement; overcoming stigma; fear of tokenism; pre-conceived views and the emotional burden of research. Successes and benefits included: advanced level of insight, a two-way learning opportunity and relatability of lived experience co-researchers. This review did not identify any best-practice guidance for co-production of PEoLC research with inclusion health groups. There are few, good quality, qualitative studies offering insight into challenges and facilitators for lived experience co-researcher involvement. Further research and formal policy development is required to produce formal best-practice guidance to support safe, impactful inclusion in PEoLC research. It is important that researchers work together with people who have lived experience of the topic they are researching. Palliative care is specialised medical care for people living with a terminal illness. There is some collaboration between researchers and people with lived experience in palliative and end-of-life care research. However, some groups of people have been excluded. This includes people experiencing homelessness, or people with drug or alcohol addictions. This review aimed to understand what works and what doesn't work when involving four excluded groups in palliative and end-of-life research. These groups were people experiencing homelessness, those who had spent time in prison, people with drug or alcohol disorders, and people who exchanged sex for money. This review used a shortened methodology, which allowed it to be done quickly. Three online academic databases (Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO) were searched for research projects: three papers were included in the review. No clear guidance for working with these groups was found. Analysis identified themes across papers. Challenges for collaboration included: appropriate payment methods; overcoming stigma; fear of being talked down to,; assumptions made before meeting people, and the potential of becoming upset. Successes and benefits included: better understanding of the research topic, the opportunity to learn from one another, and how research participants could relate to lived experience co-researchers. There are few, good quality papers, but more research is needed to produce guidance to support safe, impactful collaboration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 72%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2023.
All research outputs
#13,733,894
of 23,666,107 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#359
of 410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,167
of 249,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,107 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.