In the evolving landscape of mental health research, the active engagement of patients and the public stands as a transformative force reshaping traditional scientific inquiry. A recent narrative review published in BMC Psychiatry sheds light on emerging practices within Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) research advisory groups, illustrating how these collaborative bodies are redefining participation, equity, and impact in mental health studies worldwide.
This review meticulously analyzes 26 scholarly articles published over the last decade and highlights a rising trajectory of research focused on the evaluation of PPI groups. Predominantly drawing from studies conducted in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the research underscores a growing awareness that mental health inquiry benefits not only from clinical expertise but also from the lived experiences of individuals directly affected by mental health challenges.
One of the most remarkable insights centers on the diversity of terminologies and frameworks through which these advisory groups operate. The research identifies categories such as Community Advisory Boards, Stakeholder Groups, traditional PPI Groups, and Young People Advisory Groups, each embodying unique approaches to integrating lived experience into research governance and direction. This terminological variation signals a broadening conceptualization of “involvement,” embracing multiple dimensions of stakeholder engagement.
Youth involvement emerges as a particularly dynamic aspect, with half of the reviewed studies emphasizing the roles and contributions of young people. Incorporating youth perspectives in research advisory groups not only diversifies the range of insights but also aligns with growing recognition that early intervention and age-appropriate mental health services are crucial to effective mental health outcomes.
The review reveals a notable trend: many articles included authors who were themselves members of PPI groups. This co-authorship demonstrates an important shift toward genuine collaborations where those traditionally viewed as research “subjects” actively shape the knowledge production process. It challenges hierarchical structures and promotes epistemic justice by validating experiential knowledge as a critical component of scientific rigor.
Geographically, the predominance of studies from English-speaking countries, especially the UK, indicates where much of the pioneering work in PPI advisory groups has been concentrated. However, the authors of the review advocate for broader, cross-cultural research partnerships that could enrich the field by incorporating diverse cultural narratives and viewpoints, which are often underrepresented in mental health research.
The thematic analysis conducted within the review identifies nine core themes and an extensive array of sub-themes reflecting the complexities and nuances of these involvement groups. Central among these are principles emphasizing communication, inclusivity, flexibility, safety, and deliberate planning. Each element is shown to be vital in cultivating an environment where participants feel respected, valued, and empowered to contribute meaningfully.
Particularly critical is the issue of power dynamics and hierarchies, which the review discusses at length. Strategies to address imbalances between researchers and PPI members include fostering open dialogues, creating ‘safe spaces’ for honest exchanges, and implementing structures that distribute decision-making authority more equitably. This reflects a profound cultural shift challenging the top-down paradigms that have historically dominated scientific research.
The practical aspects of group formation and operation are addressed with attention to the recruitment process, facilitation methods, and ongoing support mechanisms essential for sustaining effective advisory bodies. Flexibility in participation modes—acknowledging the diverse capacities and preferences of individuals—emerges as a hallmark of successful engagements, enhancing inclusivity and retention.
The impact of PPI groups extends beyond advisory roles; the review documents substantial benefits for both members and researchers. For group members, engagement fosters a sense of agency, community connection, and personal growth. Researchers gain enriched insights that can guide study designs, improve relevance, and enhance ethical rigor, ultimately contributing to mental health outcomes with greater societal resonance.
Crucially, the review situates these developments within an epistemic justice framework. This philosophical lens underscores the moral imperative of recognizing and valuing knowledge generated from lived experience, advocating for the dismantling of structural barriers to full participation in research processes.
Despite this encouraging progress, the review advocates for further participatory evaluation methods, particularly those emerging from cross-cultural partnerships. Such approaches would enhance the adaptability and applicability of PPI models globally, addressing cultural sensitivities and diverse mental health paradigms.
The authors acknowledge that the field is rapidly evolving, and suggest an ongoing update of this narrative review to encompass emerging literature post-2024. This dynamic knowledge base promises to keep pace with innovative practices and changing societal contexts influencing mental health research.
The review’s co-authorship by nine individuals with lived mental health experience in peer research and public involvement lends authenticity and depth to the findings. Their positionality enriches the analysis, ensuring that reflections resonate with real-world challenges and aspirations faced by PPI participants.
In sum, this comprehensive narrative review marks a significant milestone in understanding and advancing patient and public involvement in mental health research advisory groups. By illuminating emerging practices anchored in inclusivity, communication, and equity, it maps the contours of a research ecosystem that honors experiential knowledge as an indispensable asset to scientific discovery.
Emerging from this body of work is a call to action for funders, institutions, and researchers worldwide: to embed meaningful, flexible, and culturally attuned PPI structures into the core of mental health research. Such integration promises to not only enhance the quality and relevance of studies but also to cultivate a research culture grounded in justice and mutual respect.
Subject of Research: Emerging practices in mental health patient and public involvement (PPI) research advisory groups.
Article Title: Emerging practice in mental health patient and public involvement research advisory groups: a narrative review.
Article References:
Pinfold, V., Burgess, A., Couperthwaite, L. et al. Emerging practice in mental health patient and public involvement research advisory groups: a narrative review. BMC Psychiatry 25, 722 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07120-8
Image Credits: AI Generated
