In recent years, the landscape of health research has been undergoing a transformative shift, moving away from traditional, expert-driven models toward more inclusive and participatory approaches. Among these, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged as a powerful methodology that elevates the voices of those who are often most affected by health disparities but least represented in scientific investigations. A groundbreaking scoping review by Nelson, Jenkins, Knox, and colleagues, published in the International Journal for Equity in Health in 2025, meticulously examines an essential yet underexplored facet of CBPR: the engagement of people with lived experience on community advisory boards.
Community advisory boards (CABs) have long been a staple in CBPR projects, serving as critical platforms where community members co-create, guide, and evaluate research endeavors. What sets CABs apart within CBPR paradigms is their potential to balance power dynamics, promote trust, and cultivate a bi-directional flow of information. This review delves deeply into how individuals who have firsthand knowledge of health conditions, social inequities, or systemic barriers contribute meaningfully to CABs. The authors sought to map the extent, nature, and impacts of such involvement, ultimately providing a comprehensive overview that bridges gaps in the existing literature.
The review’s findings underscore the indispensable role of lived experience in enriching the research process with nuanced, context-specific insights that cannot be gleaned solely through clinical or academic lenses. People with lived experience bring an authenticity grounded in personal and collective histories, catalyzing research questions that resonate deeply with the community’s needs. This perspective enhances study relevance and ensures that outcomes are more accurately aligned with the realities faced by marginalized populations. Importantly, the research articulates that the engagement of these individuals is not merely symbolic but constitutes a substantive partnership that shapes methodology, recruitment strategies, intervention design, and dissemination efforts.
Technical analysis within the review reveals that despite the evident benefits, integrating lived experience into CABs presents logistical and ethical challenges. Researchers must carefully navigate issues around representation, tokenism, and power imbalances. For example, selecting advisory members who genuinely reflect the diversity of lived experiences within a community requires deliberate, culturally sensitive recruitment and ongoing support mechanisms. The review highlights innovative strategies such as providing compensation, training, and mentorship to empower community advisors, ensuring their contributions are valued and sustained throughout the research lifecycle.
One of the pivotal technical contributions of the article lies in its establishment of evaluative frameworks for assessing the quality and depth of lived experience engagement. The authors propose criteria that encompass the extent of meaningful participation, influence on decision-making, and the incorporation of experiential knowledge into actionable research outputs. These frameworks offer practical tools for both researchers and funding bodies to appraise the effectiveness of CBPR initiatives, encouraging transparency and accountability in community engagement practices.
Moreover, the review sheds light on the dynamic interplay between lived experience and research ethics. Traditionally, research ethics has focused on protecting participants, but involving people with lived experience as advisors introduces a collaborative ethics dimension. Such involvement fosters respect, reciprocity, and shared ownership of data, which are critical for addressing historical mistrust in research, especially among marginalized groups. The authors elucidate how ethical guidelines can be adapted to promote these values, advocating for co-developed protocols that prioritize community priorities and uphold autonomy.
This work has profound implications for funding agencies and policy-makers. By showcasing the transformative impact of authentic lived experience engagement, the review champions restructured funding models that allocate resources specifically for community participation infrastructure. Such investment is paramount for compensating community advisors fairly, facilitating capacity building, and sustaining long-term partnerships beyond the duration of individual projects. These policy shifts could democratize health research, making it more equitable and responsive to social determinants of health.
Beyond the academic and policy realms, the practical impact of this review resonates with communities themselves. By validating the expertise cultivated through lived experience, the study empowers individuals often marginalized by the health system. It opens pathways for these individuals to become co-creators of knowledge rather than mere subjects of research, fostering agency and social justice. This paradigm shift enhances community resilience and catalyzes systemic change by integrating grassroots insights into public health interventions and social policies.
From a technical standpoint, the scoping review adopted rigorous methodologies to ensure comprehensiveness and reliability. It involved extensive database searches, predefined inclusion criteria, and systematic extraction of data relating to participant demographics, CAB structures, engagement processes, and reported outcomes. The analytical synthesis employed thematic coding to identify recurring challenges, best practices, and knowledge gaps. This meticulous approach strengthens the validity of conclusions and sets a benchmark for future meta-analyses in community-engaged research.
The temporal context of this article is also noteworthy. Published in 2025, it reflects an era increasingly defined by calls for equity, diversity, and inclusion in scientific inquiry. The global COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent necessity of community trust and collaboration in addressing public health crises. This timely review situates lived experience not as a peripheral concern but as a central pillar for resilient and effective health research infrastructures, prepared to tackle both current and emergent challenges.
The communal nature of CBPR is sharply contrasted with conventional top-down research frameworks, and this review articulates the transformative potential when lived experience is held as a knowledge form equal in stature to clinical and epidemiological expertise. The authors illuminate how such integration can lead to innovative intervention models tailored to specific cultural and socio-economic contexts, ultimately improving engagement, adherence, and health outcomes in underserved populations.
Furthermore, the article engages with the technological dimensions of modern CBPR. It explores how digital platforms and virtual meeting modalities expand the accessibility of CABs, allowing broader and more flexible participation by people with lived experience. This technological integration mitigates some traditional barriers such as geographic isolation, transportation constraints, and rigid scheduling, democratizing participation and enriching advisory diversity.
Importantly, the review also cautions against the pitfalls of superficial engagement, warning that without genuine commitment to power-sharing, lived experience involvement risks becoming performative. The authors emphasize the necessity of cultivating trust through transparency, respect, and sustained dialogical interactions. This insight calls for cultural competence and reflexivity among researchers, urging the scientific community to critically assess its own positionality and biases when engaging with communities.
In summary, Nelson and colleagues’ scoping review offers an unprecedented synthesis of the scope and impact of lived experience on community advisory boards within CBPR frameworks. It affirms that meaningful engagement amplifies research relevance, ethical integrity, and social justice, while also detailing the infrastructural, methodological, and ethical considerations necessary for effective collaboration. As health disparities persist globally, this work provides a clarion call to researchers, funders, and communities alike: true equity in health research arises when those who live the experience are not only heard but actively empowered as partners in discovery.
This landmark study promises to catalyze broader adoption of participatory approaches that harness the wisdom embedded in lived experience, transforming health research from a solitary pursuit of knowledge to a collective endeavor for well-being and justice.
Subject of Research: Engagement of individuals with lived experience on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research.
Article Title: Engaging people with lived experience on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review.
Article References: Nelson, G., Jenkins, M., Knox, B. et al. Engaging people with lived experience on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review. Int J Equity Health 24, 209 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02573-5
Image Credits: AI Generated
