
==== Front
Res Involv Engagem
Res Involv Engagem
Research Involvement and Engagement
2056-7529
BioMed Central London

39223602
607
10.1186/s40900-024-00607-w
Review
Benefits, barriers and recommendations for youth engagement in health research: combining evidence-based and youth perspectives
Bailey Katherine 12
Allemang Brooke 3
Vandermorris Ashley 45
Munce Sarah 678
Cleverley Kristin 1910
Chisholm Cassandra 11
Cohen Eva 12
Davidson Cedar 13
El Galad Asil 14
Leibovich Dahlia 15
Lowthian Trinity 16
Pillainayagam Jeanna 17
Ramesh Harshini 18
Samson Anna 19
Senthilnathan Vjura 67
Siska Paul 18
Snider Madison 18
Toulany Alene alene.toulany@sickkids.ca

245
1 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
2 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
3 grid.42327.30 0000 0004 0473 9646 Child Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON Canada
4 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
5 https://ror.org/057q4rt57 grid.42327.30 0000 0004 0473 9646 Division of Adolescent Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8 Canada
6 grid.231844.8 0000 0004 0474 0428 KITE, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON Canada
7 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
8 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
9 https://ror.org/03dbr7087 grid.17063.33 0000 0001 2157 2938 Lawrence S. Bloomberg School of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
10 https://ror.org/03e71c577 grid.155956.b 0000 0000 8793 5925 Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth & Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON Canada
11 https://ror.org/0160cpw27 grid.17089.37 Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada
12 https://ror.org/01e6qks80 grid.55602.34 0000 0004 1936 8200 Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Canada
13 grid.42327.30 0000 0004 0473 9646 Neurosciences and Mental Health, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON Canada
14 https://ror.org/02fa3aq29 grid.25073.33 0000 0004 1936 8227 Michael De Groote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada
15 https://ror.org/01pxwe438 grid.14709.3b 0000 0004 1936 8649 McGill University, Montreal, QC Canada
16 https://ror.org/03c4mmv16 grid.28046.38 0000 0001 2182 2255 Department of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON Canada
17 https://ror.org/02fa3aq29 grid.25073.33 0000 0004 1936 8227 McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada
18 Collaborator, Toronto, ON Canada
19 https://ror.org/04hfnps81 grid.498672.6 Patient Partner, Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Toronto, ON Canada
2 9 2024
2 9 2024
2024
10 9215 2 2024
5 7 2024
© Crown 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Background

Youth engagement refers to the collaboration between researchers and youth to produce research. Youth engagement in health research has been shown to inform effective interventions aimed at improving health outcomes. However, limited evidence has identified promising practices to meaningfully engage youth. This synthesis aims to describe youth engagement approaches, frameworks, and barriers, as well as provide both evidence-based and youth-generated recommendations for meaningful engagement.

Main body

This review occurred in two stages: 1) a narrative review of existing literature on youth engagement and 2) a Youth Advisory Council (YAC) to review and supplement findings with their perspectives, experiences, and recommendations. The terms ‘youth engagement’ and ‘health research’ were searched in Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO. Articles and non-peer reviewed research works related to youth engagement in health research were included, reviewed, and summarized. The YAC met with research team members and in separate youth-only forums to complement the narrative review with their perspectives. Types of youth engagement include participation as research participants, advisors, partners, and co-investigators. Barriers to youth engagement were organized into youth- (e.g., time commitments), researcher- (e.g., attitudes towards youth engagement), organizational- (e.g., inadequate infrastructure to support youth engagement), and system-level (e.g., systemic discrimination and exclusion from research). To enhance youth engagement, recommendations focus on preparing and supporting youth by offering flexible communication approaches, mentorship opportunities, diverse and inclusive recruitment, and ensuring youth understand the commitment and benefits involved.

Conclusions

To harness the potential of youth engagement, researchers need to establish an inclusive and enabling environment that fosters collaboration, trust, and valuable contributions from youth. Future research endeavors should prioritize investigating the dynamics of power-sharing between researchers and youth, assessing the impact of youth engagement on young participants, and youth-specific evaluation frameworks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-024-00607-w.

Engaging and partnering with youth in research related to healthcare is important, but often not done well. As researchers, we recognize that youth perspectives are needed to make sure we are asking the right questions, using appropriate research methods, and interpreting the results correctly. We searched the literature to identify challenges researchers have faced engaging youth in health research, as well as strategies to partner with youth in a meaningful way. We worked closely with 11 youth from across Canada with experience in healthcare, who formed a Youth Advisory Council. The youth advisors reviewed the literature we found and discussed how it fit with their own experiences and perspectives through group meetings with the research team. Youth advisors divided into four groups to co-author parts of this paper, including identifying the importance, benefits, and challenges of engaging in research and providing reflections on their positive and negative previous experiences as youth advisors. This paper provides an overview of recommendations for researchers to engage with youth in a meaningful way, including how they communicate and meet with youth, recognize their contributions, and implement feedback to improve the experiences of youth partners.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-024-00607-w.

Keywords

Youth engagement
Patient-oriented research
Narrative review
Leong Centre Studentship Awardissue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Patient engagement in health research is essential to improving the relevance, processes, and impact of their findings [1–3]. Defined as the collaboration between researchers and those with lived experience in planning and conducting research, interpreting findings, and informing knowledge translation activities [1], patient engagement in research has been shown to produce and disseminate findings that are more applicable and comprehensible for patients, their families, and the greater community [3–7]. Youth engagement refers specifically to the involvement of youth populations in the research process, with youth often being defined as young people between the ages of 15 to 24 years old [8–11]. Youth, particularly those with chronic physical health (e.g., cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, diabetes), mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression), and neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., cerebral palsy), face unique challenges in engaging with the healthcare system compared to adult populations. These include navigating healthcare transitions, developing relationships with multiple care providers, learning to advocate for themselves, and assuming greater responsibility for their healthcare as they grow and mature [12, 13]. Existing research has shown that engaging youth in research leads to more effective and impactful interventions, policies, and healthcare services aimed at supporting health outcomes of young people, informed by the priorities and experiences of youth themselves [14–19]. Several nationally representative child health organizations and leaders have identified youth engagement as a priority area in youth health, highlighting the urgent imperative to include their voices in health research and public policy decisions [20]. Despite the evidence suggesting that youth are eager and capable of being engaged, there is limited evidence on the unique considerations needed to meaningfully involve youth in health research given their distinct developmental stage [8, 10, 19, 21–29]. These considerations include an emphasis on peer connections, mentorship, flexibility given competing priorities, and the use of technology to allow for broad participation [30, 31]. In collaboration with a Youth Advisory Council (YAC), this review aims to:Outline key types of youth engagement identified in the literature (Aim 1);

Review existing youth engagement frameworks identified in the literature (Aim 2);

Explore barriers to youth engagement identified in the literature and from YAC member perspectives (Aim 3);

Summarize recommendations for engaging youth in research identified in the literature and from YAC member perspectives (Aim 4).

The YAC identified a secondary aim, which was to:5) Describe the benefits and impact of youth engagement from YAC member perspectives (Aim 5).

Methods

This project was comprised of two phases. First, the research team conducted a narrative review of the literature. Next, a project-specific YAC was established to review the literature findings and integrate the essential insights and perspectives of youth into the project. The methods pertaining to each phase are elaborated upon below. Our Research Ethics Board did not require a formal review of this project as it did not involve research participants.

Phase 1: Narrative Review

A narrative review was conducted to explore existing research on engaging youth in health research. Narrative review methodology is often employed to broadly describe the current state of the literature and provide insights for future research [32]. This review method was chosen to establish a broad understanding of the youth engagement literature and provide recommendations for researchers seeking to gain an overview of strategies for meaningful engagement. Narrative reviews also provide flexibility in terms of methodology (often based on the subjectivity of the research team) [33] and are less formal than other types of knowledge syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews) [34, 35]. This review methodology allowed the research team to prioritize and integrate the perspectives of youth into the synthesis of information. Aims 1 to 4 were addressed in Phase 1. Aim 5 was not initially identified as an objective by the research team, and was therefore not included in the review of the literature. Upon establishment of the YAC, youth advisors deemed personal reflections on the benefits and impact of youth engagement from their perspectives critical to the manuscript.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Articles included in this narrative review met the following primary inclusion criteria: 1) published in English language, 2) published prior to April 2023, 3) focused on youth engagement in health research, and 4) described key types of youth engagement strategies (Aim 1), youth engagement frameworks (Aim 2), barriers to youth engagement (Aim 3), or recommendations for youth engagement (Aim 4). For the purposes of this review, ‘youth’ was defined as individuals between the ages of 15 to 24 years old, which is consistent with the definition provided by the United Nations [11], and ‘youth engagement’ was defined as the involvement of young people within this age range in research processes. This population was chosen for the focus of this review as the needs of youth are often distinct from children and adults due to their unique developmental stage (e.g., navigating healthcare transitions, increasing autonomy, etc.) [12, 13]. Articles from any geographic location were included. Grey literature, websites, and non-peer reviewed research works (e.g., conference abstracts, theses) were also included using the same criteria as above.

Search Strategy and Synthesis

The search terms ‘youth engagement’ and ‘health research’ were searched in Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Articles were hand-searched by members of the research team and selected according to the inclusion criteria above. Reference lists of relevant articles were also scanned. While other knowledge syntheses (e.g., systematic or scoping reviews) review all works identified by the literature search, narrative reviews do not aim to be inclusive of all literature available on a given topic [36]. As such, our review of the literature was concluded once we felt that sufficiency was achieved, which was characterized by reviewing works that yielded recurrent concepts. Additionally, the literature was reviewed iteratively following feedback from youth advisors who critically reviewed the narrative review manuscript. Some aspects of the manuscript were deemed critical to expand upon by youth advisors, and literature was reviewed again accordingly.

Relevant peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature was organized and summarized descriptively according to study aims 1 to 4. Barriers to youth engagement were organized into individual-, organizational-, and systems-level. Recommendations for youth engagement were organized into common overarching themes.

Phase 2: Collaboration with Youth Advisory Council

The research team identified the criticality of collaborating with youth themselves in the review, formatting, and presentation of findings from the narrative review. As the review was being conducted and written, the research team began recruiting a group of youth advisors to contribute their perspectives, experiences, and recommendations for the manuscript. The development and procedural aspects of the YAC as they relate to the review are described below and in Fig. 1. The operation of the YAC was guided by the McCain Model of Youth Engagement [31] and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s (CIHR) Patient Engagement Framework [1]. These frameworks, which prioritize reciprocity, respect, mutual learning, flexibility, and mentorship, supported the use of youth-driven and adaptable engagement strategies throughout the project [1, 31]. Specifically, the research team employed engagement practices including co-building of a terms of reference document, inviting YAC members to co-chair meetings to foster mutual learning, and offering YAC members a menu of options for contribution, that aligned with the principles outlined in these models [1, 31]. Aims 3 (i.e., identifying barriers to youth engagement) and 4 (i.e., summarizing recommendations for youth engagement) were expanded upon by the YAC in Phase 2. As described above, Aim 5 (i.e., benefits and impact of engagement on youth themselves) was deemed crucial by members of the YAC and was exclusively addressed in Phase 2 of this project. It should be noted that while the YAC specifically contributed reflections to Aims 3–5, each member critically reviewed the manuscript and offered feedback as co-authors.

Recruitment of Youth Advisory Council Members

Recruitment for the YAC began in June 2023 through distribution of a recruitment poster via professional contacts (e.g., researchers conducting youth-engaged research, youth advisory council facilitators), social media pages, and email lists (e.g., patient-oriented research listservs, youth advisory council lists). Eligible youth advisors were Canadian youth between the ages of 15–24 years with an expressed interest in youth engagement in health research. Youth applicants completed a Google Form to describe their motivations to become involved and past experience, if applicable. To ensure a diverse range of perspectives, we considered age, sex/gender, race and ethnicity, geographic location, and a range of previous experiences with research (from limited to extensive) in our recruitment process. The research team received interest from 55 individuals, of which 17 were invited to complete a 30-min virtual interview co-led by a researcher and a youth research partner. Eleven youth were selected to join the YAC, and all accepted the team’s invitation to participate. The youth invited to compose the YAC predominantly had previous experience with health care, including as a patient, advocate, youth advisor, research participant, or research assistant. Having and/or disclosing a diagnosis of a chronic health condition was not a criterion for participation in the YAC. A collective discussion was held with youth advisors and it was determined that members preferred not to share their demographic information, though there was representation of members with varying ages, ethnicities, years of experience with engagement, and from different provinces. The research team consisted of female-identified researchers, clinicians, and trainees across interdisciplinary professional backgrounds (e.g., medicine, nursing, social work) with experience engaging youth in research and/or clinical care. As many team members do not have previous youth lived experiences in research and/or clinical care, we were committed to closely collaborating and amplifying youth voices in our research, recognizing that our work, interpretations, and applications to the broader community were limited by our non-experiential understanding of youth engagement in research. The composition of the research team and YAC allowed for critical reflection on the roles of positionality, intersectionality, power, and privilege within youth engagement. The team engaged in reflexive discussions about the importance of prioritizing equity and addressing discrimination in engagement, especially for youth with marginalized identities.

Scheduling and Meetings

In July 2023, a Doodle Poll link was sent out to all youth advisors to find three meeting times that could accommodate the majority of the youth advisors and research team. Subsequently, Microsoft Teams invites were sent via email, and meetings were recorded and transcribed for notetaking purposes.

Prior to each meeting, a meeting agenda and documents were sent for review. Meetings lasted between 1.5 and 2 h and were recorded for those who could not attend. Both the recording and the minutes were collated following each meeting and made available to all youth advisors. Prior to the first meeting, a draft terms of reference document (ToR) was distributed to all youth advisors for review. The ToR contained the purpose and expectations of youth contributing to the project. A preliminary draft of the narrative review was provided to each youth advisor for their consideration both in advance of and during the meetings. Throughout the meetings, a range of communication methods, including Jamboards, chat messaging, and online verbal discussions, were employed to enable youth to exchange ideas and actively facilitate discussions.

During the initial meeting, youth advisors were provided with guidelines aimed at creating a secure environment using a digital interactive whiteboard on Google Jamboard. To maintain confidentiality and facilitate continuous improvement, the youth advisors proposed and subsequently implemented an anonymous feedback form, accessible for youth to complete at their discretion. Subsequently, the youth advisors engaged in a collaborative ideation session to conceptualize their contributions to the synthesis. It was decided that a Slack channel would serve as the primary platform for communication among the youth advisors.

In the second meeting, the council deliberated on the ToR initially formulated by the research team, with the ToR subsequently revised to incorporate the feedback and insights provided by the youth advisors. Additions to the ToR from YAC members included greater options for compensation, strategies for addressing microaggressions, more clarity regarding YAC tasks, roles, and responsibilities, and rationale for selecting 11 advisors for the group. Following this, the group engaged in a comprehensive discussion centered on their reflections concerning the draft of the narrative review. This dialogue highlighted the identified gaps and obstacles associated with involving youth in research from YAC members’ perspectives, proposed recommendations for future research endeavors, and stressed the importance of integrating youth voices into the research process.

In the third meeting, the focus shifted towards the establishment of more focused working groups. These smaller working groups were structured to address specific aspects, including 1) the rationale behind the research (the “why”), 2) reflections on past experiences with youth engagement, 3) methodologies for engaging youth in the context of this review, and 4) formulating recommendations for future research endeavors. Youth advisors were invited to complete a form to rank their areas of interest in these four areas. Based on their ranked responses, working groups were formed and considered the alignment between youth advisor’s preferred method of contribution (e.g., developing visuals, writing a personal reflection, contributing to a table) and the specific topic of the working group.

During the fourth meeting, which was co-chaired by a research team member and a youth advisor (TL) who volunteered for this role, youth advisors and members of the research team reviewed written materials from each working group, discussed each section of the paper, and reached consensus on how the sections would be presented within the article. It was determined that youth advisor work would be combined with the existing narrative review and showcased using textboxes, figures, and tables.

Independent Working Groups

All youth advisors worked in four designated working groups over a 3-week period. Youth advisors communicated via Slack channels, email or personal messaging, with the research team available for support and guidance, as needed. Guidelines for authorship, methods of contributing to each section of the paper (e.g., brainstorming, making point form notes, developing figures), and suggestions on length/format were discussed at YAC meetings. Youth advisors were also provided with a series of resources on a collaborative drive to support their contributions to the review, including a youth-friendly guide to academic writing and examples of reports/journal articles co-authored by youth. All groups worked independently and provided finalized drafts to the research team prior to the fourth meeting.

Compensation

All youth advisors were compensated $25 per hour at the end of their involvement. All youth advisors tracked their hours with a maximum of 20 h. Youth advisors were able to track meetings, self-directed work, and all time dedicated to the project outside of meetings.Fig. 1 Methodology used to engage the Youth Advisory Council in the co-development of this article. Figure developed by the Youth Advisory Council

Results

A total of 65 articles were included, of which 56 were peer-reviewed and 9 were non-peer reviewed. Of the peer-reviewed articles, 14 were qualitative studies, 12 case studies, 7 mixed-methods, 6 commentaries, 2 curriculum development studies, and 2 randomized controlled trials. Additionally, 13 syntheses were included (n = 7 unstructured literature reviews, n = 3 scoping reviews, n = 2 systematic reviews, n = 1 scoping review protocol). Of the non-peer reviewed studies, 4 were websites and 5 were reports. A table is available in Appendix A displaying included article citations, categorization of peer-reviewed versus non-peer reviewed works, and study methods used.

In this section of the article, results pertaining to each of the five aims are presented. Aims 1 to 4 were addressed in Phase 1 of this project to outline types, frameworks, and barriers to youth engagement and summarize the literature’s recommendations on how to meaningfully engage youth. Aims 3 and 4 were addressed in collaboration with youth advisors in Phase 2 to highlight the benefits and barriers of youth engagement and recommendations from the perspectives of the youth advisors on meaningful youth engagement. Aim 5 was identified as a priority for youth advisors and their reflections are provided on the benefits and impact of engagement on youth themselves.

Aim 1: Key Types of Youth Engagement

There are several approaches to youth engagement in health research, which are based on the aim(s) of a given project, resources available, and preferences of youth themselves (shown in Table 1) [37]. Youth may be involved as research participants, such as completing a survey or participating in a focus group [24, 31, 38–40]. Youth may also take on advisory or consultation roles, where they provide input on the research scope, recruitment strategies, and methods, as well as reviews analyses, results, and/or manuscripts, from which the researcher may decide if or how to implement their suggestions (e.g., advisory councils) [24, 38–41]. Youth may assume co-production roles, which actively involves youth in the development of research objectives and design, funding proposals, study informational materials, recruitment of participants, data collection instruments, co-facilitating focus groups/interviews, analysis of data, presentations, manuscripts, and knowledge translation activities [10, 24, 41]. This may also be referred to as partnership, which involves active collaboration of youth with researchers to support and/or lead aspects of the project (e.g., collaborate on research methodology, lead certain research activities) [24, 31, 38–40]. Finally, youth-led research refers to projects that are entirely led by youth, with or without the support of an adult researcher [24, 31, 38–40]. Table 1 Types of youth engagement in health research

Type of Youth Engagement	Key Features	Example(s)	
Participation Role	• Youth are involved as research subjects.	• Adult research teams recruit youth participants to complete a study survey or participate in a focus group, such as conducting semi-structured interviews with youth living with neurodevelopmental disabilities to determine their training needs in becoming research partners [42].	
Advisory or Consultation Role	• Youth provide feedback on study methodology, results, and manuscripts developed by the adult researcher.

• Researchers may decide the extent to which they implement youth feedback.

	• Youth advisory groups/councils, steering committees, such as the MICYRN KidsCan Young Person’s Advisory Group, in which youth advisors consulted on the design of patient information and study materials, recruitment websites, and study design [43].	
Co-Production or Partnership Role	• Youth co-produce key components of the study methodology alongside the adult researcher.

• Youth are actively involved in data collection, data analysis, and knowledge translation activities.

• Youth may support the adult research team or lead certain aspects of the project.

• Youth in this role are often included as authors on manuscripts and scholarly outputs.

	• Bipolar Youth Action Project, in which youth were engaged as peer researchers in all research phases, including 1) grant writing, 2) recruitment of participants, 3) research participants, and 4) data analysis [44].	
Youth-Led Research Role	• All aspects of the research project is entirely youth-led.

• Adult researchers may or may not be involved to support the youth research team.

	• Sexual Health And Reproductive Empowerment (SHARE) Project, in which youth researchers developed and conducted their own projects to related to sexual health issues [45].

• Youth researchers were mentored by adult researchers [45].

	

A recent systematic review identified youth engagement practices in mental health-specific research, highlighting the most common youth engagement types were advisory roles, where youth were often involved in providing feedback on the research topic, analysis of qualitative data, and dissemination of findings, with less emphasis placed on co-production methods [10]. Authors identified one study which utilized a youth-led participatory action research approach in the mental health research setting, which is a power-equalizing methodology involving collaborative decision-making and viewing youth as experts based on their own lived experience [44, 46–48].

Aim 2: Frameworks for Youth Engagement

A significant body of literature has proposed various frameworks for supporting patient engagement in research, with research teams more recently developing frameworks specific to youth engagement [49]. For example, the Youth Engagement in Research Framework, designed by youth and researchers at the University of Manitoba, identified seven strategies to create a culturally-inclusive research environment for youth to meaningfully contribute to the research process [50]. Strategies included 1) understanding motivations of youth to engage in research, 2) sharing intentions to implement research findings, 3) supporting diverse youth identities in engagement, 4) actively addressing the barriers to youth engagement, 5) reinforcing that engaging in research is a choice, 6) developing trusting relationships through listening and acknowledging contributions, and 7) respecting different forms of knowledge creation, acquisition, and dissemination [51].

Youth engagement has also been achieved through health research communities of practice, a framework aimed at promoting a space for youth to develop identity, build capacity for youth to develop research, communication, and advocacy skills, lead projects, and develop relationships with the research team [52–54]. A Canadian research team developed IN•GAUGE®, a health research community of practice which aims to promote collaboration between youth, families, researchers, and policy makers and support the development of strategies to improve child and family health [51, 52]. This program uses Youth and Family Advisory Councils, a group of youth and family members who contribute to the direction of the project and provide input on research methods based on their own lived experiences [51]. This community of practice has built a robust network of youth and family researchers, which helps alleviate some challenges associated with finding youth to support a project.

Researchers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada have developed the McCain Model for Youth Engagement, which is specific to mental health populations [55]. This model is based on flexibility (i.e., the youth and research team work together to co-design deliverables/timelines and develop skills that are relevant to the youth’s goals), mentorship (i.e., in the development of research skills, incorporating youth strengths into research design), authentic decision-making (i.e., avoiding ‘tokenism’, carefully considering and implementing youth feedback), and reciprocal learning (i.e., both youth and researchers are ‘teachers’ and ‘learners’). Based on the implementation of the McCain Model, researchers propose that youth engagement should be established when research projects are in the early planning stages, reflect on organizational-level barriers to youth engagement and plan policies and practices around them, and train researchers on the value of engaging youth [55].

A recent commentary made key recommendations for youth engagement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic [30]. First, authors propose adapting youth engagement strategies to facilitate rapid decision-making, such as utilizing connections with pre-existing youth advisory councils, providing additional compensation, and offering opportunities for online participation. Additionally, they suggest leveraging virtual platforms for youth engagement methods, while ensuring that youth with disabilities or chronic health conditions are offered appropriate accommodations. Finally, subsidies or shared tablets or computers may be offered to youth researchers to ensure virtual platforms are accessible and reduce technological barriers [30].

Aim 3: Barriers to Engaging Youth in Research

A series of barriers for engaging youth in health research have been identified in the literature through a narrative review. These barriers are grouped into individual, organizational, and systemic factors and are presented below. In Table 2, a summary of these barriers, as outlined in the published literature is presented. Youth advisors were invited to review this list and provide their own expansions, reactions, and additions based on their knowledge and experiences. A key limitation in the exploration of barriers related to youth engagement is that much of the existing literature does not specify what level of youth enagagement was being employed. Table 2 Individual, organizational, and system-level barriers to youth engagement in health research

From the Literature	From Youth Advisors’ Perspectives	
Individual-Level Barriers: Youth	
• Mistrust in healthcare system, including healthcare providers and research teams [56].

• Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (e.g., developmental disability, race and ethnicity, gender, language, health literacy) due to discrimination and negative experiences engaging with the healthcare system and/or research [57, 58].

• Lack of incentive to participate as a youth partner [59].

• Lack of theoretical knowledge about research methods [60].

• Youth attitudes and expectations about the project [61].

• Sustaining youth engagement throughout the duration of the project [61].

• Time commitment to engage in research, other commitments (e.g., employment, education) [61].

• Exacerbation of illness during research time period [44].

	• Lack of access to networks or needing “insider knowledge” of research spaces:

 ◦ Navigating academia depends on knowing who to go to and where youth can find resources to engage in research.

 ◦ Youth with access to networks or mentors know which researchers or supervisors to connect with to attain a research position, research grants, etc.

 ◦ Youth without networks or mentors (e.g., first-generation students, new immigrants, parents in other fields, etc.) face a massive learning curve especially in STEM. They are put at a disadvantage, often “behind the curve” and without knowledge of how to become involved in research.

• Discriminatory experiences along multiple axes of identities:

 ◦ Students from traditionally excluded and marginalized backgrounds often encounter discrimination in research spaces. They may not have the tools, resources, or ability to name their experiences with personal and/or institutional discrimination.

 ◦ This discourages continued participation and engagement in research. It negatively impacts their mental health, making the experience stressful or encouraging them to leave a career in research. They may be further isolated if they cannot find or build a supportive community within these spaces.

	
Individual-Level Barriers: Researchers	
• Pre-existing beliefs, attitudes, and/or biases about youth engagement [24].

• Lack of knowledge about how to engage or communicate with youth [24, 59].

	• Competitive attitudes in research:

 ◦ “Publish-or-perish” attitudes breed an unhealthy and often ableist attitude to work in research.

 ◦ For example, youth feel forced to take on unpaid labour/“grunt work” at the expense of their wellbeing to get a reference letter from a principal investigator, continue their research position, etc.

 ◦ Youth researchers might be discouraged from continuing in research because this culture reframes the goal of research from learning and sharpening skills to instead incentivize publishing papers.

	
Organizational-Level	
• Inadequate infrastructure to support youth engagement (e.g., funding, policies, training opportunities) [24].

• Lack of awareness or education for researchers [24, 62].

• Limited access to engagement opportunities and recruitment of youth partners [24].

• Departments/institutions do not recognize or value youth engagement work [24, 62].

• Challenges with Research Ethics Board, with limited best practices for reviewers to evaluate youth engagement practices to ensure methods are ethically acceptable [63, 64].

	• Encountering strict hierarchies:

 ◦ Labs and research spaces construct hierarchies that impose power dynamics (e.g., student < graduate student < PhD candidate < post-doctoral fellow < principal investigator). This creates a space which undervalues youth knowledge or makes it unsafe to step forward and ask for support.

• Hiring youth in labs and academia:

 ◦ An emphasis on credentials and professional experiences (e.g. referrals, resumes, etc.) places youth new to academia or without networks/resources at a disadvantage. How much experience in a lab can researchers expect from a first-year university student hoping to gain experience and learn?

• Strict research timelines:

 ◦ Research is conducted on a per grant, granting agency, or lab project plan timeline but is not flexible for youth circumstances, who are balancing school, work, and/or life.

• Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) resources are often overwhelmed or performative:

 ◦ Having a committee in a department does not translate to youth who are marginalized to navigate academic spaces.

 ◦ Often, the different resources for EDI-support are disparate, lack connectivity or do not offer support on a sustained basis.

• Encountering a culture of individual learning without providing appropriate support:

 ◦ Many academic research spaces practice a culture of “teach-yourself”.

 ◦ While independent learning is crucial for building confidence and granting agency over projects, without proper resources and mentorship, this culture leaves young people without the necessary support system to learn the skills they need to be successful in research.

	
System-Level	
• Systemic discrimination and exclusion from research (e.g., Black, Indigenous, and 2SLGBTQIA + individuals) [65–68].

• Stigma of mental health, developmental disability, and/or youth capabilities [69–72].

• Lack of system-wide incentives to involve youth in research, including mandates in academic journals and grant competitions [73].

• Power dynamics between adult researchers and youth [74–77].

	• Policy-makers must critically reflect on whose voices are trusted in research spaces and how some voices are silenced because they do not fit a Western worldview around research.	

Individual-Level Barriers: Youth-Specific

Many youth may be discouraged from engaging in research due to their own negative lived experiences with the healthcare system. For example, youth may be distrustful of adult clinicians and researchers, particularly those who may have had traumatic medical experiences (e.g., lengthy hospital/intensive care unit admissions, surgeries, invasive treatments), complex and chronic healthcare conditions, or marginalized identities [56]. While understanding these perspectives and experiences is crucial to improve health service structures and delivery, they may not be captured without carefully considering and applying appropriate youth engagement methods. Similarly, those with negative previous experiences with youth engagement may feel tokenized or patronized, particularly if they did not feel authentically valued or listened to by the research team [57, 59].

Youth characteristics may also result in exclusion from youth engagement and/or exacerbate existing barriers to partnering, particularly the presence of physical disabilities, visual/hearing impairments, intellectual disabilities, neurological conditions, mental health conditions, and/or socioeconomic factors [69, 70, 78]. Youth with disabilities may experience mobility impairments preventing them from easily attending research team meetings, may require additional time and supports to complete research tasks, or utilize assistive devices (e.g., communication tools) [69, 70, 78]. Low literacy levels and/or language barriers may also make engagement inaccessible without appropriate accommodations [78].

Furthermore, youth priorities may impact willingness to engage in research. Specifically, youth may not feel valued without formal recognition for their contributions, such as financial compensation, volunteer hours, authorship on manuscripts, or opportunities to present research at academic meetings [59]. They may also not want youth engagement opportunities to infringe on their leisure or personal time, or may be hesitant to engage in projects with long time commitments [61]. A study highlighting experiences with engaging youth with Bipolar Disorder as peer researchers identified that attrition was also affected by illness relapse, as well as difficulties balancing the responsibilities of the research project with post-secondary education and employment commitments [44].

Individual-Level Barriers: Adult Researcher-Specific

Research team members may also hold specific beliefs or attitudes towards youth engagement. For example, some researchers may feel anxious about losing control over the research process, may not see youth as experts themselves, or hold biases about the value of youth perspectives [24]. Researchers may also perceive youth engagement as an added layer of complexity, fear that engagement may impact the scientific rigor of the research design, or be concerned that youth engagement may negatively impact the research quality [24, 26, 27, 79–81]. Further, some studies have highlighted that researchers do not feel equipped with the skills or knowledge to engage and communicate with youth, or to design studies using youth engagement principles [24, 62]. Finally, researchers may experience challenges navigating differing priorities between youth partners and members of the research team. For example, researchers may prioritize more traditional markers of research success, including peer-reviewed manuscripts and grant proposals which often require rapid turnaround times, and be concerned that youth engagement may add to the timeline of a project [24, 62].

Organizational-Level Barriers

As youth engagement has emerged as a best practice recently, many academic institutions do not yet have the infrastructure or resources to support engagement opportunities [24]. While examples of capacity-building programs for youth co-researchers exist in the participatory action research literature [82], there is a need for further development of training resources to support youth who are engaging in health research [83]. Formal education on youth engagement is often not included in research training programs, despite many granting agencies recently making changes to require and/or promote patient engagement considerations in funding applications [1, 62]. Further, many organizations have not adopted policies to outline best practices for youth engagement, and academic workplace culture also may not yet value youth engagement, resulting in limited willingness to adapt research practices [24, 62]. These factors may exacerbate existing difficulties with securing sufficient time and resources to support relationship-building between youth partners and adult members of the research team, which is a commonly cited challenge with youth engagement [26, 27, 84, 85].

System-Level Barriers

Youth with complex health conditions, such as those with developmental disabilities, often experience stigma and exclusion from clinical research [69–72]. Specifically, research teams may inaccurately perceive youth with chronic medical conditions as ‘vulnerable’ or ‘fragile’, thus deeming them unable or incapable to contribute meaningfully or complete study-related tasks [24, 70, 72, 73, 86, 87]. Youth with marginalized identities, including Black, Indigenous, and 2SLGBTQIA+ youth, often experience discrimination within the healthcare system, with several studies suggesting mistrust of research institutions, researchers, and healthcare systems stemming from community experiences of mistreatment in research as the most significant barrier to participating in clinical research [65–68]. Furthermore, youth from racial and ethnic minorities often receive less information and attention from healthcare providers compared to white youth, potentially limiting awareness of the opportunities and/or value in contributing to health services research [68, 88]. Notably, limited literature has considered the impact of other social and structural determinants of health on youth engagement, including income, housing, and geographic location.

Youth may also be apprehensive to share their perspectives, critiques, or suggestions for improvement with adult researchers due to inherent power imbalances [74–77]. Given the differences in power between adults and youth, as well as between patients and clinicians/researchers, youth engagement may involve researchers dominating the conversation, thus preventing equal contribution and collaboration. Ultimately, these dynamics have the potential to produce harmful cultures or practices for youth entering research environments, especially among youth from marginalized groups. These barriers and possible outcomes resulting from these power imbalances are elaborated on in Table 2.

Finally, researchers themselves may face barriers as many major funding agencies have yet to prioritize or incorporate youth engagement in their strategy, resulting in limited funding opportunities to support this type of engagement work or a lack of dedicated time and resources for researchers to build relationships with youth [73]. Of note, the CIHR has developed a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, and requires grant proposals in certain funding streams to utilize patient engagement methods [1]. However, this is not yet universally implemented across funding agencies and does not guide engagement with youth specifically. Additionally, funding agencies often have strict eligibility and assessment criteria, including level of education and evidence of prior research and scholarly outputs, which may inherently exclude youth researchers from participating in funding applications. Finally, granting agencies have funding deadlines which may not accommodate the flexibility needed to build meaningful relationships with youth partners.

Further, while some academic journals have incorporated mandatory reporting on stakeholder and patient involvement in the research design, this is not a standard of practice, and many of these journals are engagement-focused [55, 62, 89]. Finally, there is a lack of consensus around how to report on engagement practice and outcomes of engagement across studies, which contributes to inconsistencies in what constitutes meaningful and effective engagement. While tools are emerging to enhance transparency in reporting engagement, including the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP), no tools exist for youth engagement specifically [90, 91]. Barriers to engaging youth in health research from both the literature and the perspectives of the youth advisors involved in this project are summarized in Table 2.

Aim 4: Facilitators and Recommendations for Youth Engagement

Many studies have highlighted recommendations to improve the implementation of youth engagement across research contexts. Canada’s Youth Policy was created in 2020 to develop a greater understanding of the experiences and perspectives of youth living in Canada [92]. As part of this, funding opportunities through Canada’s major funding body for health research (CIHR) have begun to focus on providing meaningful opportunities to empower youth in research such as the Healthy Youth Initiative [93]. Our study findings are in line with these newly implemented policies as they lay the foundation for researchers on how to meaningfully engage youth in health research. In the following section, current strategies, strengths, and facilitators in the health sector that can support youth engagement are outlined, along with areas for improvement. As in Table 2, these recommendations were reviewed and expanded upon by the YAC in Table 3. Table 3 Summary of evidence-based and co-created Youth Advisory Council recommendations for youth engagement

	Recommendations from the Literature	Recommendations from Youth Advisors	
Individual-Level Recommendations	
 Training Opportunities	• Formally train youth about the research topic and process [10, 83, 94].

• Offer opportunities for youth to practice their skills prior to initiation of the project [10].

• Gradually reduce support for youth as they begin to build competency [10].

• Use established youth researchers to lead youth training sessions [10].

• Have youth co-design and co-deliver youth engagement training to researchers [42].

• Use multiple modes of delivery for youth engagement training, including videos, online modules, mentorship, and resources [42].

• Offer concrete training opportunities for researchers on how to effectively engage youth [62].

• Train all research staff involved on best practices for communicating and leading youth [10].

• Provide youth with opportunities for growth (e.g., attending workshops, conferences) [78].

	• Provide preparatory material in advance containing relevant background information, common language and terms to orient the youth, and allow them to feel better equipped to participate.

• Provide leadership opportunities through which youth can lead and co-chair meetings as the project progresses to increase youth agency.

• Establish a mentorship program through which experienced youth mentors can regularly check in with their beginner youth mentees to ease nerves and increase confidence.

	
 Team and Youth Recruitment	• Develop partnerships with youth at the beginning of the research process [55].

• Use social media or youth-friendly flyers that target community organizations that serve youth and youth advisory councils [78].

• Recruit multiple youth at the beginning of a project to mitigate impact of attrition [10].

• Involve a project champion to lead effective engagement strategies [21].

	• Use broad recruitment techniques (virtual or in-person postings) in various spaces and target groups to ensure diversity.

• Verbalize value of youth’s connections and experiences that can assist in recruitment.

• Ensure youth understand commitment, benefits/compensation for project, and expectations at recruitment stage.

	
 Budget and Incentives	• Have a flexible budget in case youth propose adjustments to research protocol [10].

• Formally recognize youth contributions, including volunteer hours, course credits, certificates, reference letters, honorariums or wages, co-authorship [44, 58].

• Consult with youth themselves to decide how to best recognize their contributions [59].

• Offer compensation for travel, if applicable [10].

• Discuss future directions of research project and gauge interest of youth in continuing to partner in future research endeavours, if applicable [42].

	• Promote enhancing youth’s networks within the research space.

• Introduce youth to research colleagues, increasing opportunities that align with youth participant’s values.

• Offer financial compensation for time devoted towards research through cash/e-transfer deposits (most preferable), visa cards or gift cards.

	
 Research Meetings	• Provide opportunity for written and verbal participation, as well as virtual opportunities [30].

• Offer multiple ways to engage in research meetings, including providing lay summaries of meeting discussions via email, scheduling additional one-on-one meetings, and team discussions [42, 95, 96].

• Offer blended online and offline engagement formats, including use of pre- and post-meeting work to allow for shorter meetings to be scheduled [97].

• Choose meeting spaces that are accessible, accommodating, and account for potential past traumatic experiences within healthcare settings [78].

• Support youth in facilitating research meetings [55].

• Establish timelines that support their participation in the project and be upfront about time commitment expectations [59].

• Be flexible with meeting hours (i.e., offer weekend and evening meeting times to accommodate school/work schedules) [78].

• Assign concrete responsibilities and tasks at the end of each meeting [44].

• Co-design terms of reference at the first meeting to establish group guidelines and create a safer space [31].

	• Include anonymous forms of participation such as Jamboard, Mentimeter, etc.

• To create a safe space, allocate time throughout the project for youth to share their thoughts, feedback and experiences, which can be done during meetings or anonymously through feedback forms.

• To support youth in facilitating meetings, provide meeting agenda templates and encourage goal/next steps planning. Researchers can also include examples of how previous projects have been conducted.

• Provide recordings, meeting minutes and asynchronous participation opportunities for youth that are unable to attend any meetings.

• Discuss each team member’s strengths and preferred form of contribution before assigning tasks and responsibilities. Researchers can also ask youth if they want to have dedicated roles such as facilitator, note-taker, etc.

	
 Communication Approaches	• Use youth-friendly communication strategies, including limiting jargon, using a polite demeanour, and respecting youth contributions and perspectives [62, 78, 98].

• Reassure youth that their input and contributions are valued [44].

• Utilize different levels of youth participation to balance youth schedules (school, work) and project timelines [31].

• Clearly define roles and responsibilities for youth and adult researchers [98, 99].

• Set mutual expectations for communication approaches between researchers and youth [95].

• Discuss youth goals and values to understand what ‘meaningful engagement’ means to them [100].

• Co-develop research goals grounded in the context of the greater purpose of the research project to enhance motivation (e.g., reinforce how small research activities impact greater study) [44].

• Use relationship building activities to establish rapport [101].

• Ensure accessibility in communication approaches, such as both written and audio-recordings of documents, video recordings of meetings with closed captioning enabled) [42].

• Be transparent about what the expected benefits of the research are and who the findings will likely impact (e.g., some youth may not value increasing knowledge generation, but may be motivated to know the outputs of the research may be expected to impact a certain change) [97].

• Be transparent about how youth feedback will be used, such as using tracked changes to research outputs [97].

	• Avoid using tokenistic language when involving youth. For example, instead of valuing participants for being youth, emphasize the value of their contributions.

• Recognize youth contributions towards the research project. For example, a summary of the benefits of their ideas could be provided over time, such as “Your idea on posting flyers in this clinic helped us recruit six participants and develop a connection for future research.”

• Provide an overarching aim or direction of the project to aid in the co-development of goals with youth.

• Co-develop research goals or use pre-established goals to give direction but that allow for flexibility.

• Engage team-building in youth through the use of icebreakers, introductions, group chats or other ideas that excite youth.

• Establish how youth would best like to connect with the team.

• Allow flexibility in communication platforms such as: Email, Messenger, WhatsApp, Slack. Youth should be involved in the establishment of preferred method(s) of communication.

• Consider developing a “response time” for communication to respect youth commitments and completion of the research project.

	
 Engaging Youth from Diverse Backgrounds	• Aim to develop methods of recruitment of youth and researchers who may speak to the diverse population and/or population of study [31, 61, 102].

• Acknowledge and value diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas by openly discussing input [103].

• Book a translator and/or use communication devices if working with youth with language and/or communication barriers (e.g., deaf, hard of hearing) [78].

• Creatively explore individualized methods to engage youth with special needs (e.g., involving caregivers, discuss activity preferences, use non-verbal communication methods) [70, 78].

• Develop group boundaries and expectations to create a safe space for all youth involved [78].

• Consider individualized learning needs of youth partners [78].

• Respect that youth facing social stigma may be apprehensive to share their perspectives [78].

• Adhere to ethical principles and best practices for specific communities, if applicable [31].

• Use a trauma-informed approach and identify when topics or situations trigger personal reactions [78, 101].

	• Recognize the diversity of youth, in terms of backgrounds and beliefs, without establishing hierarchies around said beliefs or values.

• Recognize and engage in meaningful conversation around how research institutions recreate and reinforce certain power structures or dynamics in traditionally marginalized communities (e.g. extraction of knowledge with no acknowledgement for contributions, harms perpetuated from failing to consent, etc.).

• Avoid creating notions of “representatives”. Youth from one community should not be expected to speak on behalf of their entire group and others. Recognize that one youth can have specific experiences but it does not mean they speak on the whole. Focus on broadening engagement with multiple members of similar groups/backgrounds.

• Have feedback mechanisms that address youth concerns/lack of safety and accountability mechanisms that ensure these issues are not replicated in the future.

• Identify and share external resources to ensure youth remain safe as they engage in spaces.

	
 Evaluation	• Use formal, evidence-based evaluation tools iteratively, including quantitative and qualitative data about the engagement process, throughout the research process and continually make amendments/incorporate feedback [31, 104].

• Use formal, evidence-based evaluation tools at the end of the research process using mixed methods (e.g., anonymous feedback tools, semi-structured questions) to understand the overall engagement experience [78].

• Use informal check-ins following each meeting to gain youth feedback, either via anonymous tools, verbal feedback in breakout rooms, email, or other communication platforms [78, 97].

• Evaluate both youth and researchers’ perspectives [31].

	• Track changes (e.g. in a research decisions log, transition document, etc.) which can be reviewed at the end or applied in other youth projects. Changes can include feedback on what did and did not work.

• Work with youth to define what “success” for a project looks like. Create youth-informed benchmarks (quantitative and/or qualitative) that incorporate youth or community standards of success.

• Have “first-responders” able to receive complaints from youth and can act on them. Accountability builds safety and rebuilds trust in institutions.

	
Organizational and System-Level Recommendations	
 Capacity Development	• Provide researchers with practical steps needed to meaningfully engage youth across the continuum of research [62].

• Advocate for funding agencies, journals, Research Ethics Boards, and academic institutions to include mandates to engage youth and/or offer increased recognition and appreciation [62].

• Develop or support local, regional, or national networks of youth-engaged researchers [62].

• Raise awareness of the importance and benefits of using youth engagement to enhance research findings [62].

• Use creative strategies to promote and centralize engagement opportunities, such as a national repository of engagement opportunities [42, 105].

• Organizations may consider profiling youth and researchers interested in youth engagement to cultivate relationships through social media platforms [42, 106].

	• Develop “Youth Research Engagement Coordinator” position at research institutions who can offer training to staff and youth for all stages of projects, advertise opportunities, and assist youth programming.

• Dedicate website space for accessible and efficient presentation of youth opportunities.

• Create Youth Advisory Boards for projects relating to youth.

• Determine how youth can feel empowered in their communities.

• Partner with schools to offer credit hours, research internships, funding for self-directed project development and more.

• Share opportunities via established youth and professional networks and mentorship groups.

	

Engaging Youth from Structurally Marginalized Populations

Engagement of youth with intersecting marginalized identities, such as Black, Indigenous, or 2SLGBTQIA+ youth, and youth with disabilities, language/communication barriers, immigrants and refugees, experiencing homelessness, or living in foster care, may involve several unique considerations [31]. Research teams should engage both youth and researchers from communities with lived experience to provide insights and support engagement strategies [31]. It is also important to recognize that engaging youth from Indigenous communities may involve a unique approach. Practices adopted by Indigenous-led organizations may exist that focus on youth empowerment that are specific to their communities. For example, the ‘Indigenous Youth Voices Report’ produced by The Yellowhead Institute at Toronto Metropolitan University in collaboration with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society outlined requirements for engaging and conducting research with and by Indigenous youth, which included themes such as ensuring research is accessible, uplifting Indigenous youth to co-create research, relationship-building and reciprocity, and using holistic approaches to ensure Two-Spirit, 2SLGBTQ+ youth, and Elders are meaningfully included in research approaches [107]. Further, a recent study showed evidence supporting the use of web-conferencing technology to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia through co-facilitation of an Online Yarning Circle, an Indigenous methodology that involves sharing, listening, interpreting, and understanding information in an informal setting [108, 109].

Additionally, teams should partner with researchers who have experience working with youth from these populations. Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada has recently developed an innovative and inclusive patient engagement model, called Equity-Mobilizing Partnerships in Community (EMPaCT), designed to highlight the priorities and needs of diverse communities informed by the perspectives of individuals with lived experience [110, 111]. Research teams can consult this service to identify approaches to advance equity and social justice within their projects [110, 111]. Researchers may also consider using the ‘Valuing All Voices Framework’, which is a trauma-informed, intersectional framework that guides researchers on how to embed a social justice and health equity lens into patient engagement, with the goal of enhancing inclusivity within health research [112]. This framework is based on four core concepts, including trust (e.g., focusing on resilience/strength rather than challenges, allowing time to build relationships), self-awareness (e.g., practicing honesty, creating safe spaces), empathy (e.g., allowing the space to share stories), and relationship building (e.g., share experiences, promote ongoing communication, show awareness and sensitivity towards cultural differences) [112].

All research team members engaged in this work should be offered training on best practices for communicating and engaging with specific populations [31]. Appropriate accommodations, such as communication tools, accessibility aids, and financial support for involvement, should be offered consistently to optimize engagement of youth with diverse experiences and perspectives [78]. While not specific to youth engagement, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom has a guidance document which outlines considerations to increase diversity in research participation, including a focus on building trust, conducting research in places familiar to participants, developing accessible recruitment materials, and incorporating peer-led activities [113]. Finally, researchers should adhere to existing ethical standards for specific marginalized communities, such as the CIHR guidelines for conducting research involving Indigenous people [114].

Evaluation of Youth Engagement

Robust evaluation of youth engagement strategies is a core component of youth involvement in research and should be used to enhance implementation of principles in research, provide feedback, and ensure researchers are held accountable in upholding best practices [104, 115]. While there are no empirically-tested tools for the evaluation of youth engagement in research, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods may be used, including the Youth Engagement Guidebook developed through the CAMH [31], the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) [116], and the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS) [117]. These instruments are co-designed by patients and are used to evaluate the quality of engagement strategies from the perspective of patient partners themselves [117]. It should be noted, however, that empirically-tested tools for measuring youth-adult partnerships more broadly do exist [118–120] and could likely contribute useful information to the measurement of youth engagement in research, specifically. It is also recommended to evaluate the impact of youth engagement from the researchers’ perspectives, which may include reflecting on how valuable the team considered youth partners to be, the extent of youth involvement, and the impact of youth engagement on project outcomes [31]. Alberta Health Services has developed a resource tool kit containing survey instruments to assist research teams with routine evaluation of their collaboration skills [121]. Research teams should carefully evaluate and iteratively modify their engagement strategies to ensure youth are meaningfully involved.

Capacity Development

Several independent training programs exist to educate researchers, community stakeholders, patients, youth, and caregivers on engaging patients in health research, including the Patient and Community Engagement in Research (PaCER) program [122], McMaster University Family Engagement in Research (FER) course [123], Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) [124], and Partners in Research (PiR) [125]. Further, a recent study was conducted to develop simulations in collaboration with interdisciplinary stakeholders to train researchers on how to engage youth in childhood disability research [126]. These simulation videos focused on aspects of the research process where challenges may arise based on previous experiences of youth and family advisors [126].

Aim 5: Youth Advisor Reflections on the Impact of Youth Engagement

While describing the evidence-based benefits of youth engagement in research within the literature was beyond the initial scope of the narrative review, youth advisors deemed it critical to present their experiences regarding their motivations for becoming involved in research and the impact of research opportunities on youth. Two youth advisors reflected on the benefits of youth engagement in research from their own experiences and collectively developed the content displayed in Table 4 in a small working group. The same two advisors considered their prior involvement in research and outlined the impact of engagement on their lives in Table 5. They were invited to share any aspects of their experiences they felt were important to communicate with a broad audience, and selected the format and method of organization of their reflections. These reflections offer unique and valuable insights into the importance of creating opportunities for meaningful and conscientious youth engagement in research using youths’ own language. Table 4 Youth advisors’ reflections on the benefits of youth engagement in research

“Every youth involved in research has a unique set of reasons that motivate them to participate, including the personal benefits to each individual. Youth engagement allows youth to explore areas of interest to help them realize areas of strengths and weaknesses. If youth are never given the opportunity to participate and engage in research, it can be difficult for those who are curious about research to find and apply their passions and interests. Regardless of the type of youth partnership opportunity, when collaborating with a research team, youth gain valuable research experience, including the opportunity to network with professionals. Youth who are interested in pursuing post-secondary education in health sciences might be inclined to develop their research skills and develop a network through their involvement as a youth in research. Starting with engagement in research as a youth is an approach that people use to get further involved with research as an interest or career, making it a significant source of motivation.

Many youth are motivated to become involved in health research due to their own experiences with healthcare. As patients, caregivers, and those in proximity to health conditions, youth interact with healthcare in a variety of ways. Many cite negative experiences with healthcare due to ageism, where their voices and experiences aren’t taken seriously due to their young age. These experiences fuel many youth to participate in health research so that they can improve healthcare outcomes by advocating for change. Youth want to use their experiences to influence change so that others do not face the same hardships they faced while navigating the healthcare system. By championing and normalizing youth engagement in research, youth want to make sure their perspectives are embedded in research from the start; closing the gap of missing or inadequate data regarding adolescents and young adults in broader research. Many youth are interested in participating in health research to bring the youth perspective to research, improve existing knowledge, and improve the healthcare system and health outcomes for others.

Without youth participation in research, there is little to no research about youth or discussing topics that are prevalent to youth in society. Following the “Nothing about us, without us” slogan used by the Disability Rights Movement, youth from diverse backgrounds are encouraged to get involved in research as research covers a large range of topics relevant to outcomes in youth health [127]. By normalizing and encouraging participation in research, youth of all socioeconomic backgrounds can get involved in research, resulting in representative research data. Youth are interested in health research because they have unique perspectives and opinions based on their own experiences. Youth involved in research are able to rebuild their own trust in the medical system by being able to provide their own opinions and perspectives to the research team and feel heard when the research reflects their perspectives. Many youth are left with a sense of purpose after being involved in research and continue engaging themselves in research, which results in more studies being conducted on youth by youth.”

Written by members of the Youth Advisory Council

	

Table 5 Youth advisors reflections on the impact of engagement experiences on youth themselves

“Youth engagement in health research is a necessity. Therefore, considerations of their experiences is a necessity. The previous experiences of youth interacting with healthcare or health research will often impact their behavior going further into adulthood. Research is enriched by the participation of all types of people from all demographics. This means that for researchers who want that enrichment in their work, they need to be thinking about what kinds of experiences youth are having that shape their perspectives about the world around them as well as about health and health research.

For example, one of the Youth Advisors for this paper, Madison, had joined a previous research coalition for patients with autoimmune disease. Within that project, the lead researchers routinely reiterated that the project was being led by the young adults, and that final decisions needed to be made amongst themselves, not by the researchers. This encouraged members who maybe did not have experience in this area yet to speak up with their peers rather than continuing to let the ‘real adults’ make the decisions for them. As a result, Madison gained confidence in a research space as well as in a co-leadership role, and felt empowered to join more research projects.

Another youth who contributed to this paper, Jeanna, was a member of a youth advisory council for a youth health care organization a few years ago. Part of the council’s role was to advise on and support various research projects within the organization. However, as Jeanna spent more time with the organization, contributing her time and lived experience, she began to notice a pattern. It seemed that for many of the projects that she had been a part of, she would either never hear back about the progress of the project again after her initial contribution, or it seemed like none of the youth’s contributions were actually included in the final project. When Jeanna tried to bring this up to her contacts within the organization, promises were always made to address her concerns, but she would never hear from anyone about the issue again. After a while, this started to take a toll on her. She felt like she was not actually making any meaningful change in the health care system, and was failing to be a good advocate for youth in health/research environments. The experience left her feeling tokenized, defeated, and powerless.

These two vastly different experiences are a testament to how important it is to meaningfully and conscientiously engage youth in research. During the process of engaging youth in research, it is important to remember that intent and impact are two different things. Youth who come into these spaces come with an abundance of passion, knowledge, and lived experience. They also come with curiosity and a desire to learn. Following best practices to engage these youth is imperative for helping them to maintain trust within the research process. In turn, researchers will receive much stronger research outcomes.”

Written by members of the Youth Advisory Council

	

Conclusions, Limitations & Future Directions

This narrative review provides an overview of the current literature in youth engagement in health research in combination with the perspectives of youth advisors themselves. The research team and YAC collectively identified key types and frameworks for youth engagement, synthesized several barriers and recommendations for implementing youth engagement, and provided critical reflections on the impact and benefits of youth engagement in the youth voice. While many evidence-based frameworks exist to incorporate and evaluate patient engagement in research, gaps remain in the identification of the best practices for youth engagement specifically [49]. Much of the available youth engagement literature has focused on involving youth in mental health research, with limited evidence regarding best practices to engage youth with chronic physical health and neurodevelopmental conditions [10, 21, 24]. Further, a paucity of evidence has highlighted the barriers and best practices to engaging youth with low income, those experiencing homelessness, and rural/remote communities in health research.

Limitations

This article employed narrative review methodology to provide an overview of existing research in youth engagement in research. A more structured and systematic review and critical appraisal of included literature by multiple independent reviewers was not within the scope of this paper, which may have excluded relevant literature. The information presented in this article may serve as a foundation for a systematic review of the literature on this topic, which our research team endeavours to complete in the future. Additionally, the search was limited to articles published in English, which may have excluded relevant literature, including potential barriers or recommendations specific to non-English speaking youth. Future research should consider a fulsome exploration of youth engagement strategies, barriers, and recommendations published in languages other than English. Demographic information of youth advisors was not collected or presented as part of this article due to YAC member preference. In addition, a previous diagnosis of a chronic health condition and/or lived experience as a patient was not a criterion for inclusion in the YAC. Rather, youth advisors had a diverse set of experiences with health care (e.g., as patients, advocates, previous youth advisors, research assistants, and/or research participants). Furthermore, youth members were self-selected by the research team, and not recruited from established youth organizations with elected representatives. As such, we are unable to determine whether the youth composing the YAC are representative of the target population. Future studies could examine how demographic characteristics and/or prior experiences with engagement influence youths’ perceptions of barriers, enablers, and recommendations for youth engagement.

Future Directions

To address many of the barriers identified in this review, further work is needed at the organizational- and systems-levels to build policies and programs that support youth engagement in research. As such, youth advisors developed a call to action for researchers and their hopes for the future of youth engagement in research, available in Table 6. Finally, robust studies are needed to develop and validate youth engagement evaluation tools [31]. Table 6 Youth Advisory Council call to action for researchers

“In the future we hope to see more youth involved in research for personal and professional purposes. We hope that youth researchers have a voice and are valued. Transforming research spaces to advocate and empower youth requires change from individual to systemic levels. As youth-specific interventions are implemented, as indicated by the youth and research team, it is the Youth Advisory Council’s hope that:

 • Power is re-shared and re-negotiated, moving away from traditional hierarchies and towards a culture and institutional practices that ground their research in youth and community expertise.

 • Researchers gain knowledge about allyship with youth and what it looks like to mitigate unhealthy behaviours that arise from power dynamics.

 • Professionals are dedicated to youth research engagement and reflect on how they can engage youth in their own work.

 • Youth know where to find research opportunities and are not held back from acting on their ideas due to lack of resources, support, and knowledge.”

Written by the Youth Advisory Council

	

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1

Abbreviations

YAC Youth Advisory Council

ToR Terms of reference

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Children, The Hospital for Sick Children for supporting this work through the Leong Centre Studentship Award.

Authors’ contributions

KB synthesized the literature, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. BA provided youth engagement expertise, facilitated youth advisor meetings, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. CC, EC, CD, AEG, DL, TL, JP, HR, AS, PS, MS contributed their perspectives and expertise as part of the Youth Advisory Council, drafted components of the manuscript, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. BA, AV, SM, KC, VS, and AT conceptualized the design and methods of this study, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Funding

This work is supported by the Leong Centre Studentship Award received by Katherine Bailey and Dr. Alene Toulany. The other authors received no additional funding.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Katherine Bailey and Brooke Allemang contributed equally as co-primary authors.
==== Refs
References

1. CIHR. Strategy for patient-oriented research - patient engagement framework. 2019. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html#a4.
2. Harrington RL Hanna ML Oehrlein EM Camp R Wheeler R Cooblall C Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis: report of the ISPOR patient-centered special interest group Value Health 2020 23 6 677 688 10.1016/j.jval.2020.01.019 32540224
Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, Camp R, Wheeler R, Cooblall C, et al. Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis: report of the ISPOR patient-centered special interest group. Value Health. 2020;23(6):677–88.32540224 10.1016/j.jval.2020.01.019
3. Domecq JP Prutsky G Elraiyah T Wang Z Nabhan M Shippee N Patient engagement in research: a systematic review BMC Health Serv Res 2014 14 1 89 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89 24568690
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89.24568690 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
4. Mason NR Sox HC Whitlock EP A patient-centered approach to comparative effectiveness research focused on older adults: lessons from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute J Am Geriatr Soc 2019 67 1 21 28 10.1111/jgs.15655 30586155
Mason NR, Sox HC, Whitlock EP. A patient-centered approach to comparative effectiveness research focused on older adults: lessons from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(1):21–8.30586155 10.1111/jgs.15655
5. Concannon TW Fuster M Saunders T Patel K Wong JB Leslie LK Lau J A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research J Gen Intern Med 2014 29 12 1692 1701 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x 24893581
Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, Lau J. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701.24893581 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x
6. Brett J Staniszewska S Mockford C Herron-Marx S Hughes J Tysall C Suleman R Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review Health Expect 2014 17 5 637 650 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x 22809132
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.22809132 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x
7. Crocker JC Ricci-Cabello I Parker A Hirst JA Chant A Petit-Zeman S Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2018 363 k4738 10.1136/bmj.k4738 30487232
Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:k4738.30487232 10.1136/bmj.k4738
8. Henderson JL Hawke LD Relihan J Youth engagement in the YouthCan IMPACT trial CMAJ 2018 190 Suppl S10 S12 10.1503/cmaj.180328 30404840
Henderson JL, Hawke LD, Relihan J. Youth engagement in the YouthCan IMPACT trial. CMAJ. 2018;190(Suppl):S10–2.30404840 10.1503/cmaj.180328
9. Henderson J Courey L Relihan J Darnay K Szatmari P Cleverley K Youth and family members make meaningful contributions to a randomized-controlled trial: YouthCan IMPACT Early Interv Psychiatry 2022 16 6 670 677 10.1111/eip.13232 34725926
Henderson J, Courey L, Relihan J, Darnay K, Szatmari P, Cleverley K, et al. Youth and family members make meaningful contributions to a randomized-controlled trial: YouthCan IMPACT. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2022;16(6):670–7.34725926 10.1111/eip.13232
10. McCabe E, Amarbayan MM, Rabi S, Mendoza J, Naqvi SF, Thapa Bajgain K, et al. Youth engagement in mental health research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2023;26(1):30–50.
11. Nations U. Youth. 2023. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth.
12. Blum RW Garell D Hodgman CH Jorissen TW Okinow NA Orr DP Slap GB Transition from child-centered to adult health-care systems for adolescents with chronic conditions. A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine J Adolesc Health 1993 14 7 570 6 10.1016/1054-139X(93)90143-D 8312295
Blum RW, Garell D, Hodgman CH, Jorissen TW, Okinow NA, Orr DP, Slap GB. Transition from child-centered to adult health-care systems for adolescents with chronic conditions. A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. J Adolesc Health. 1993;14(7):570–6.8312295 10.1016/1054-139X(93)90143-D
13. Toulany A Willem Gorter J Harrison M A call for action: Recommendations to improve transition to adult care for youth with complex health care needs Paediatr Child Health 2022 27 5 297 302 10.1093/pch/pxac047 36016598
Toulany A, Willem Gorter J, Harrison M. A call for action: Recommendations to improve transition to adult care for youth with complex health care needs. Paediatr Child Health. 2022;27(5):297–302.36016598 10.1093/pch/pxac047
14. Catino J Battistini E Babchek A Young people advancing sexual and reproductive health: toward a new normal 2019 Berkeley University of California
Catino J, Battistini E, Babchek A. Young people advancing sexual and reproductive health: toward a new normal. Berkeley: University of California; 2019.
15. Larsson I Staland-Nyman C Svedberg P Nygren JM Carlsson IM Children and young people’s participation in developing interventions in health and well-being: a scoping review BMC Health Serv Res 2018 18 1 507 10.1186/s12913-018-3219-2 29954392
Larsson I, Staland-Nyman C, Svedberg P, Nygren JM, Carlsson IM. Children and young people’s participation in developing interventions in health and well-being: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):507.29954392 10.1186/s12913-018-3219-2
16. Nesrallah S, Klepp KI, Budin-Ljøsne I, Luszczynska A, Brinsden H, Rutter H, et al. Youth engagement in research and policy: the CO-CREATE framework to optimize power balance and mitigate risks of conflicts of interest. Obes Rev. 2023;24 Suppl 1:e13549.
17. Kana ‘iaupuni SM Ka ‘akālai Kū Kanaka: a call for strengths-based approaches from a Native Hawaiian perspective Educ Res 2005 34 5 32 8 10.3102/0013189X034005032
Kana ‘iaupuni SM. Ka ‘akālai Kū Kanaka: a call for strengths-based approaches from a Native Hawaiian perspective. Educ Res. 2005;34(5):32–8.10.3102/0013189X034005032
18. Krenichyn K Schaefer-McDaniel N Clark H Zeller-Berkman S Where are young people in youth program evaluation research? Child Youth Environ 2007 17 2 594 615 10.1353/cye.2007.0083
Krenichyn K, Schaefer-McDaniel N, Clark H, Zeller-Berkman S. Where are young people in youth program evaluation research? Child Youth Environ. 2007;17(2):594–615.10.1353/cye.2007.0083
19. Liebenberg L Editor’s introduction: special issue: understanding meaningful engagement of youth in research and dissemination of findings Int J Qual Methods 2017 16 1 1609406917721531 10.1177/1609406917721531
Liebenberg L. Editor’s introduction: special issue: understanding meaningful engagement of youth in research and dissemination of findings. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917721531.10.1177/1609406917721531
20. Canada U Inspiring health futures: a vision for Canada’s children, youth and families 2021
Canada U. Inspiring health futures: a vision for Canada’s children, youth and families. 2021.
21. Mawn L Welsh P Stain HJ Windebank P Youth Speak: increasing engagement of young people in mental health research J Ment Health 2015 24 5 271 275 10.3109/09638237.2014.998810 26193175
Mawn L, Welsh P, Stain HJ, Windebank P. Youth Speak: increasing engagement of young people in mental health research. J Ment Health. 2015;24(5):271–5.26193175 10.3109/09638237.2014.998810
22. Holland S Renold E Ross NJ Hillman A Power, agency and participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research Childhood 2010 17 3 360 375 10.1177/0907568210369310
Holland S, Renold E, Ross NJ, Hillman A. Power, agency and participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood. 2010;17(3):360–75.10.1177/0907568210369310
23. Delman J Participatory action research and young adults with psychiatric disabilities Psychiatr Rehabil J 2012 35 3 231 234 10.2975/35.3.2012.231.234 22246121
Delman J. Participatory action research and young adults with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2012;35(3):231–4.22246121 10.2975/35.3.2012.231.234
24. Faithfull S Brophy L Pennell K Simmons MB Barriers and enablers to meaningful youth participation in mental health research: qualitative interviews with youth mental health researchers J Ment Health 2019 28 1 56 63 10.1080/09638237.2018.1521926 30353772
Faithfull S, Brophy L, Pennell K, Simmons MB. Barriers and enablers to meaningful youth participation in mental health research: qualitative interviews with youth mental health researchers. J Ment Health. 2019;28(1):56–63.30353772 10.1080/09638237.2018.1521926
25. Bristow S Atkinson C Child-led research investigating social, emotional and mental health and wellbeing aspects of playtime Educ Child Psychol 2020 37 4 115 129 10.53841/bpsecp.2020.37.4.115
Bristow S, Atkinson C. Child-led research investigating social, emotional and mental health and wellbeing aspects of playtime. Educ Child Psychol. 2020;37(4):115–29.10.53841/bpsecp.2020.37.4.115
26. Dewa LH Lawrence-Jones A Crandell C Jaques J Pickles K Lavelle M Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties Health Expect 2021 24 Suppl 1 Suppl 1 134 46 10.1111/hex.13088 32515538
Dewa LH, Lawrence-Jones A, Crandell C, Jaques J, Pickles K, Lavelle M, et al. Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties. Health Expect. 2021;24 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):134–46.32515538 10.1111/hex.13088
27. Dewa LH Lavelle M Pickles K Kalorkoti C Jaques J Pappa S Aylin P Young adults’ perceptions of using wearables, social media and other technologies to detect worsening mental health: a qualitative study PLoS One 2019 14 9 e0222655 10.1371/journal.pone.0222655 31532786
Dewa LH, Lavelle M, Pickles K, Kalorkoti C, Jaques J, Pappa S, Aylin P. Young adults’ perceptions of using wearables, social media and other technologies to detect worsening mental health: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222655.31532786 10.1371/journal.pone.0222655
28. Ennals P Lessing K Spies R Egan R Hemus P Droppert K Co-producing to understand what matters to young people living in youth residential rehabilitation services Early Interv Psychiatry 2022 16 7 782 791 10.1111/eip.13222 34494354
Ennals P, Lessing K, Spies R, Egan R, Hemus P, Droppert K, et al. Co-producing to understand what matters to young people living in youth residential rehabilitation services. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2022;16(7):782–91.34494354 10.1111/eip.13222
29. Kendal SE Milnes L Welsby H Pryjmachuk S Prioritizing young people’s emotional health support needs via participatory research J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2017 24 5 263 271 10.1111/jpm.12373 28170132
Kendal SE, Milnes L, Welsby H, Pryjmachuk S. Prioritizing young people’s emotional health support needs via participatory research. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24(5):263–71.28170132 10.1111/jpm.12373
30. Allemang B Cullen O Schraeder K Pintson K Dimitropoulos G Recommendations for youth engagement in Canadian mental health research in the context of COVID-19 J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2021 30 2 123 130 33953764
Allemang B, Cullen O, Schraeder K, Pintson K, Dimitropoulos G. Recommendations for youth engagement in Canadian mental health research in the context of COVID-19. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;30(2):123–30.33953764
31. Darnay K Hawke LD Chaim G INNOVATE research. Toronto youth engagement guidebook for researchers 2019
Darnay K, Hawke LD, Chaim G. INNOVATE research. Toronto youth engagement guidebook for researchers. 2019.
32. Rumrill PD Jr Fitzgerald SM Using narrative literature reviews to build a scientific knowledge base Work 2001 16 2 165 170 12441470
Rumrill PD Jr, Fitzgerald SM. Using narrative literature reviews to build a scientific knowledge base. Work. 2001;16(2):165–70.12441470
33. Sukhera J Narrative reviews in medical education: key steps for researchers J Grad Med Educ 2022 14 4 418 419 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00481.1 35991097
Sukhera J. Narrative reviews in medical education: key steps for researchers. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(4):418–9.35991097 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00481.1
34. Jahan N Naveed S Zeshan M Tahir MA How to conduct a systematic review: a narrative literature review Cureus 2016 8 11 e864 27924252
Jahan N, Naveed S, Zeshan M, Tahir MA. How to conduct a systematic review: a narrative literature review. Cureus. 2016;8(11):e864.27924252
35. Bernardo WM Nobre MR Jatene FB Evidence-based clinical practice. Part II--searching evidence databases Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2004 50 1 104 8 10.1590/S0104-42302004000100045 15253037
Bernardo WM, Nobre MR, Jatene FB. Evidence-based clinical practice. Part II--searching evidence databases. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2004;50(1):104–8.15253037 10.1590/S0104-42302004000100045
36. Sukhera J Narrative reviews: flexible, rigorous, and practical J Grad Med Educ 2022 14 4 414 417 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1 35991099
Sukhera J. Narrative reviews: flexible, rigorous, and practical. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(4):414–7.35991099 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1
37. Vandall-Walker V. Patient-researcher engagement in health research: active, mututally beneficial, co-creation. In: Proceedings from the 12th Annual Covenant Health Research Day February 7, 2017. Edmonton; 2017.
38. Beresford P User involvement, research and health inequalities: developing new directions Health Soc Care Community 2007 15 4 306 312 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00688.x 17578391
Beresford P. User involvement, research and health inequalities: developing new directions. Health Soc Care Community. 2007;15(4):306–12.17578391 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2007.00688.x
39. Roche B Guta A Flicker S Peer research in action i: models of practice 2010 Toronto The Wellesley Institute
Roche B, Guta A, Flicker S. Peer research in action i: models of practice. Toronto: The Wellesley Institute; 2010.
40. CMHDARN, Ask the Experts: A CMHDARN Best Practice Guide to Enabling Consumer and Carer Leadership in Research and Evaluation, Sydney, 2015.
41. Prior K Ross K Conroy C Barrett E Bock SG Boyle J Youth participation in mental health and substance use research: implementation, perspectives, and learnings of the Matilda Centre Youth Advisory Board Ment Health Prev 2022 28 200251 10.1016/j.mhp.2022.200251
Prior K, Ross K, Conroy C, Barrett E, Bock SG, Boyle J, et al. Youth participation in mental health and substance use research: implementation, perspectives, and learnings of the Matilda Centre Youth Advisory Board. Ment Health Prev. 2022;28:200251.10.1016/j.mhp.2022.200251
42. Dong SY Nguyen L Cross A Doherty-Kirby A Geboers J McCauley D Youth engagement in research: exploring training needs of youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities Res Involv Engagem 2023 9 1 50 10.1186/s40900-023-00452-3 37430378
Dong SY, Nguyen L, Cross A, Doherty-Kirby A, Geboers J, McCauley D, et al. Youth engagement in research: exploring training needs of youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):50.37430378 10.1186/s40900-023-00452-3
43. Chan M Scott SD Campbell A Elliott SA Brooks H Hartling L Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: an environmental scan with stakeholder interviews Health Expect 2021 24 5 1763 1779 10.1111/hex.13316 34288282
Chan M, Scott SD, Campbell A, Elliott SA, Brooks H, Hartling L. Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: an environmental scan with stakeholder interviews. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1763–79.34288282 10.1111/hex.13316
44. Lapadat L Balram A Cheek J Canas E Paquette A Michalak EE Engaging youth in the bipolar youth action project: community-based participatory research J Participat Med 2020 12 3 e19475 10.2196/19475
Lapadat L, Balram A, Cheek J, Canas E, Paquette A, Michalak EE. Engaging youth in the bipolar youth action project: community-based participatory research. J Participat Med. 2020;12(3):e19475.10.2196/19475
45. SHARE. SHARE project: sexual health and reproductive empowerment. 2023. Available from: https://www.shareproject.ca/about.
46. Salami B Denga B Taylor R Ajayi N Jackson M Asefaw M Salma J Access to mental health for Black youths in Alberta Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can 2021 41 9 245 253 10.24095/hpcdp.41.9.01 34549916
Salami B, Denga B, Taylor R, Ajayi N, Jackson M, Asefaw M, Salma J. Access to mental health for Black youths in Alberta. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2021;41(9):245–53.34549916 10.24095/hpcdp.41.9.01
47. Morse JM Evaluating qualitative research Qual Health Res 1991 1 3 283 286 10.1177/104973239100100301
Morse JM. Evaluating qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 1991;1(3):283–6.10.1177/104973239100100301
48. Kemmis S McTaggart R Nixon R Kemmis S McTaggart R Nixon R Introducing critical participatory action research The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research 2014 Singapore Springer Singapore 1 31
Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R. Introducing critical participatory action research. In: Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R, editors. The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2014. p. 1–31.
49. Greenhalgh T Hinton L Finlay T Macfarlane A Fahy N Clyde B Chant A Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot Health Expect 2019 22 4 785 801 10.1111/hex.12888 31012259
Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801.31012259 10.1111/hex.12888
50. Woodgate R. Youth engagement in research framework. 2021. Available from: https://theconversation.com/young-canadians-are-asking-to-be-included-in-research-heres-how-to-engage-them-174646.
51. Woodgate RL Zurba M Tennent P Advancing patient engagement: youth and family participation in health research communities of practice Res Involv Engagem 2018 4 1 9 10.1186/s40900-018-0094-2 29560275
Woodgate RL, Zurba M, Tennent P. Advancing patient engagement: youth and family participation in health research communities of practice. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):9.29560275 10.1186/s40900-018-0094-2
52. Wenger E Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity 1998 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Wenger E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
53. Urquhart R Cornelissen E Lal S Colquhoun H Klein G Richmond S Witteman HO A community of practice for knowledge translation trainees: an innovative approach for learning and collaboration J Contin Educ Heal Prof 2013 33 4 274 281 10.1002/chp.21190
Urquhart R, Cornelissen E, Lal S, Colquhoun H, Klein G, Richmond S, Witteman HO. A community of practice for knowledge translation trainees: an innovative approach for learning and collaboration. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2013;33(4):274–81.10.1002/chp.21190
54. Hurtubise K Rivard L Héguy L Berbari J Camden C Virtual knowledge brokering: describing the roles and strategies used by knowledge brokers in a pediatric physiotherapy virtual community of practice J Contin Educ Health Prof 2016 36 3 186 194 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000101 27583995
Hurtubise K, Rivard L, Héguy L, Berbari J, Camden C. Virtual knowledge brokering: describing the roles and strategies used by knowledge brokers in a pediatric physiotherapy virtual community of practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(3):186–94.27583995 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000101
55. Heffernan OS Herzog TM Schiralli JE Hawke LD Chaim G Henderson JL Implementation of a youth-adult partnership model in youth mental health systems research: challenges and successes Health Expect 2017 20 6 1183 1188 10.1111/hex.12554 28295940
Heffernan OS, Herzog TM, Schiralli JE, Hawke LD, Chaim G, Henderson JL. Implementation of a youth-adult partnership model in youth mental health systems research: challenges and successes. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1183–8.28295940 10.1111/hex.12554
56. Kim J Youth involvement in Participatory Action Research (PAR): challenges and barriers Crit Soc Work 2016 17 38 53
Kim J. Youth involvement in Participatory Action Research (PAR): challenges and barriers. Crit Soc Work. 2016;17:38–53.
57. Zeldin S Christens BD Powers JL The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: bridging generations for youth development and community change Am J Community Psychol 2013 51 3–4 385 397 10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y 23054170
Zeldin S, Christens BD, Powers JL. The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: bridging generations for youth development and community change. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(3–4):385–97.23054170 10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y
58. Hawke LD Cleverley K Settipani C Rice M Henderson J Youth friendliness in mental health and addiction services: protocol for a scoping review BMJ Open 2017 7 9 e017555 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017555 28947459
Hawke LD, Cleverley K, Settipani C, Rice M, Henderson J. Youth friendliness in mental health and addiction services: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017555.28947459 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017555
59. Hawke LD Relihan J Miller J McCann E Rong J Darnay K Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution: practical recommendations for researchers Health Expect 2018 21 6 944 949 10.1111/hex.12795 29858526
Hawke LD, Relihan J, Miller J, McCann E, Rong J, Darnay K, et al. Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution: practical recommendations for researchers. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):944–9.29858526 10.1111/hex.12795
60. Kirk S Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: a literature review Int J Nurs Stud 2007 44 7 1250 1260 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.015 17027985
Kirk S. Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44(7):1250–60.17027985 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.015
61. Hill M Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation Childhood 2006 13 1 69 89 10.1177/0907568206059972
Hill M. Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood. 2006;13(1):69–89.10.1177/0907568206059972
62. Hawke LD Darnay K Relihan J Khaleghi-Moghaddam M Barbic S Lachance L Enhancing researcher capacity to engage youth in research: researchers’ engagement experiences, barriers and capacity development priorities Health Expect 2020 23 3 584 592 10.1111/hex.13032 32170902
Hawke LD, Darnay K, Relihan J, Khaleghi-Moghaddam M, Barbic S, Lachance L, et al. Enhancing researcher capacity to engage youth in research: researchers’ engagement experiences, barriers and capacity development priorities. Health Expect. 2020;23(3):584–92.32170902 10.1111/hex.13032
63. Preston J, Lappin E, Ainsworth J, Wood CL, Dimitri P. Involving children and young people as active partners in paediatric health research. Paediatr Child Health. 2023;34(1):11–6.
64. Lincoln AK Borg R Delman J Developing a community-based participatory research model to engage transition age youth using mental health service in research Fam Community Health 2015 38 1 87 97 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000054 25423247
Lincoln AK, Borg R, Delman J. Developing a community-based participatory research model to engage transition age youth using mental health service in research. Fam Community Health. 2015;38(1):87–97.25423247 10.1097/FCH.0000000000000054
65. Sengupta S. Factors affecting African-American participation in AIDS research. United States: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 1999.
66. Farmer DF Jackson SA Camacho F Hall MA Attitudes of African American and low socioeconomic status white women toward medical research J Health Care Poor Underserved 2007 18 1 85 99 10.1353/hpu.2007.0008 17337800
Farmer DF, Jackson SA, Camacho F, Hall MA. Attitudes of African American and low socioeconomic status white women toward medical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(1):85–99.17337800 10.1353/hpu.2007.0008
67. Calderón JL Baker RS Fabrega H Conde JG Hays RD Fleming E Norris K An ethno-medical perspective on research participation: a qualitative pilot study Medscape Gen Med 2006 8 2 23
Calderón JL, Baker RS, Fabrega H, Conde JG, Hays RD, Fleming E, Norris K. An ethno-medical perspective on research participation: a qualitative pilot study. Medscape Gen Med. 2006;8(2):23.
68. Scharff DP Mathews KJ Jackson P Hoffsuemmer J Martin E Edwards D More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010 21 3 879 897 10.1353/hpu.0.0323 20693733
Scharff DP, Mathews KJ, Jackson P, Hoffsuemmer J, Martin E, Edwards D. More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(3):879–97.20693733 10.1353/hpu.0.0323
69. Kembhavi G Wirz S Engaging adolescents with disabilities in research Alter 2009 3 3 286 296 10.1016/j.alter.2009.05.004
Kembhavi G, Wirz S. Engaging adolescents with disabilities in research. Alter. 2009;3(3):286–96.10.1016/j.alter.2009.05.004
70. Bailey S Boddy K Briscoe S Morris C Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review Child Care Health Dev 2015 41 4 505 14 10.1111/cch.12197 25323964
Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(4):505–14.25323964 10.1111/cch.12197
71. Morris J Including all children: finding out about the experiences of children with communication and/or cognitive impairments Child Soc 2003 17 5 337 348 10.1002/CHI.754
Morris J. Including all children: finding out about the experiences of children with communication and/or cognitive impairments. Child Soc. 2003;17(5):337–48.10.1002/CHI.754
72. Beresford B Working on well-being: researchers’ experiences of a participative approach to understanding the subjective well-being of disabled young people Child Soc 2012 26 3 234 240 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00436.x
Beresford B. Working on well-being: researchers’ experiences of a participative approach to understanding the subjective well-being of disabled young people. Child Soc. 2012;26(3):234–40.10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00436.x
73. Wadman R Williams AJ Brown K Nielsen E Supported and valued? A survey of early career researchers’ experiences and perceptions of youth and adult involvement in mental health, self-harm and suicide research Res Involv Engagem 2019 5 1 16 10.1186/s40900-019-0149-z 31164992
Wadman R, Williams AJ, Brown K, Nielsen E. Supported and valued? A survey of early career researchers’ experiences and perceptions of youth and adult involvement in mental health, self-harm and suicide research. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):16.31164992 10.1186/s40900-019-0149-z
74. Nygreen K Ah Kwon S Sanchez P Urban youth building community J Community Pract 2006 14 1–2 107 123 10.1300/J125v14n01_07
Nygreen K, Ah Kwon S, Sanchez P. Urban youth building community. J Community Pract. 2006;14(1–2):107–23.10.1300/J125v14n01_07
75. Ross L Sustaining youth participation in a long-term tobacco control initiative: consideration of a social justice perspective Youth Soc 2011 43 2 681 704 10.1177/0044118X10366672
Ross L. Sustaining youth participation in a long-term tobacco control initiative: consideration of a social justice perspective. Youth Soc. 2011;43(2):681–704.10.1177/0044118X10366672
76. Suleiman AB Soleimanpour S London J Youth action for health through youth-led research J Community Pract 2006 14 1–2 125 145 10.1300/J125v14n01_08
Suleiman AB, Soleimanpour S, London J. Youth action for health through youth-led research. J Community Pract. 2006;14(1–2):125–45.10.1300/J125v14n01_08
77. Wilson N Dasho S Martin AC Wallerstein N Wang CC Minkler M Engaging young adolescents in social action through photovoice: the youth empowerment strategies (YES!) project J Early Adolesc 2007 27 2 241 261 10.1177/0272431606294834
Wilson N, Dasho S, Martin AC, Wallerstein N, Wang CC, Minkler M. Engaging young adolescents in social action through photovoice: the youth empowerment strategies (YES!) project. J Early Adolesc. 2007;27(2):241–61.10.1177/0272431606294834
78. Ministry of Children and Family Development BC Youth engagement toolkit resource guide 2013
Ministry of Children and Family Development BC. Youth engagement toolkit resource guide. 2013.
79. Campbell A For their own good: recruiting children for research Childhood 2008 15 1 30 49 10.1177/0907568207086834
Campbell A. For their own good: recruiting children for research. Childhood. 2008;15(1):30–49.10.1177/0907568207086834
80. Moules T O’Brien N Participation in perspective: reflections from research projects Nurse Res 2012 19 2 17 22 10.7748/nr2012.01.19.2.17.c8904 22338804
Moules T, O’Brien N. Participation in perspective: reflections from research projects. Nurse Res. 2012;19(2):17–22.22338804 10.7748/nr2012.01.19.2.17.c8904
81. Powell MA Smith AB Children’s participation rights in research Childhood 2009 16 1 124 142 10.1177/0907568208101694
Powell MA, Smith AB. Children’s participation rights in research. Childhood. 2009;16(1):124–42.10.1177/0907568208101694
82. Nelson Ferguson K, Coen SE, Gilliland J. “It helped me feel like a researcher”: reflections on a capacity-building program to support teens as co-researchers on a participatory project. J Adolesc Res. 2023;0(0):07435584231176992.
83. Fløtten KJØ Guerreiro AIF Simonelli I Solevåg AL Aujoulat I Adolescent and young adult patients as co-researchers: a scoping review Health Expect 2021 24 4 1044 1055 10.1111/hex.13266 33991369
Fløtten KJØ, Guerreiro AIF, Simonelli I, Solevåg AL, Aujoulat I. Adolescent and young adult patients as co-researchers: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1044–55.33991369 10.1111/hex.13266
84. Walker E Shaw E Nunns M Moore D Thompson CJ No evidence synthesis about me without me: Involving young people in the conduct and dissemination of a complex evidence synthesis Health Expect 2021 24 S1 122 133 10.1111/hex.13078 32510790
Walker E, Shaw E, Nunns M, Moore D, Thompson CJ. No evidence synthesis about me without me: Involving young people in the conduct and dissemination of a complex evidence synthesis. Health Expect. 2021;24(S1):122–33.32510790 10.1111/hex.13078
85. Viksveen P Cardenas NE Ibenfeldt M Meldahl LG Krijger L Game JR Involvement of adolescent representatives and coresearchers in mental health research: experiences from a research project Health Expect 2022 25 1 322 332 10.1111/hex.13383 34761487
Viksveen P, Cardenas NE, Ibenfeldt M, Meldahl LG, Krijger L, Game JR, et al. Involvement of adolescent representatives and coresearchers in mental health research: experiences from a research project. Health Expect. 2022;25(1):322–32.34761487 10.1111/hex.13383
86. Clavering EK McLaughlin J Children’s participation in health research: from objects to agents? Child Care Health Dev 2010 36 5 603 11 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01094.x 20533922
Clavering EK, McLaughlin J. Children’s participation in health research: from objects to agents? Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36(5):603–11.20533922 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01094.x
87. Allsop MJ Holt RJ Levesley MC Bhakta B The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2010 5 1 1 13 10.3109/17483100903323267 19941436
Allsop MJ, Holt RJ, Levesley MC, Bhakta B. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):1–13.19941436 10.3109/17483100903323267
88. Katz RV Green BL Kressin NR Claudio C Wang MQ Russell SL Willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical studies: confirmatory findings from a follow-up study using the Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire J Natl Med Assoc 2007 99 9 1052 1060 17913117
Katz RV, Green BL, Kressin NR, Claudio C, Wang MQ, Russell SL. Willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical studies: confirmatory findings from a follow-up study using the Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(9):1052–60.17913117
89. Banner D Bains M Carroll S Kandola DK Rolfe DE Wong C Graham ID Patient and public engagement in integrated knowledge translation research: are we there yet? Res Involv Engagem 2019 5 8 10.1186/s40900-019-0139-1 30805202
Banner D, Bains M, Carroll S, Kandola DK, Rolfe DE, Wong C, Graham ID. Patient and public engagement in integrated knowledge translation research: are we there yet? Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:8.30805202 10.1186/s40900-019-0139-1
90. Staniszewska S Brett J Mockford C Barber R The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011 27 4 391 399 10.1017/S0266462311000481 22004782
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):391–9.22004782 10.1017/S0266462311000481
91. Staniszewska S Brett J Simera I Seers K Mockford C Goodlad S GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research BMJ 2017 358 j3453 10.1136/bmj.j3453 28768629
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.28768629 10.1136/bmj.j3453
92. Canada Go. Canada’s youth policy - Canada.ca. 2020.
93. Research CIoH. Healthy youth initiative. 2023. [updated 2023-06-26]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53529.html.
94. Edwards M Lawson C Rahman S Conley K Phillips H Uings R What does quality healthcare look like to adolescents and young adults? Ask the experts! Clin Med (Lond) 2016 16 2 146 151 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-2-146 27037384
Edwards M, Lawson C, Rahman S, Conley K, Phillips H, Uings R. What does quality healthcare look like to adolescents and young adults? Ask the experts! Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(2):146–51.27037384 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-2-146
95. Cavens C Imms C Drake G Garrity N Wallen M Perspectives of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy about involvement as research partners: a qualitative study Disabil Rehabil 2022 44 16 4293 4302 10.1080/09638288.2021.1900927 33779451
Cavens C, Imms C, Drake G, Garrity N, Wallen M. Perspectives of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy about involvement as research partners: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(16):4293–302.33779451 10.1080/09638288.2021.1900927
96. Camden C Shikako-Thomas K Nguyen T Graham E Thomas A Sprung J Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts Disabil Rehabil 2015 37 15 1390 1400 10.3109/09638288.2014.963705 25243763
Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(15):1390–400.25243763 10.3109/09638288.2014.963705
97. Bennett V Gill C Miller P Wood A Bennett C Ypag N Singh I Co-production to understand online help-seeking for young people experiencing emotional abuse and neglect: building capabilities, adapting research methodology and evaluating involvement and impact Health Expect 2022 25 6 3143 3163 10.1111/hex.13622 36210767
Bennett V, Gill C, Miller P, Wood A, Bennett C, Ypag N, Singh I. Co-production to understand online help-seeking for young people experiencing emotional abuse and neglect: building capabilities, adapting research methodology and evaluating involvement and impact. Health Expect. 2022;25(6):3143–63.36210767 10.1111/hex.13622
98. Powers JL, Tiffany JS. Engaging youth in participatory research and evaluation. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006;12:S79–87.
99. Checkoway B Richards-Schuster K Youth participation in community evaluation research Am J Eval 2003 24 1 21 33 10.1177/109821400302400103
Checkoway B, Richards-Schuster K. Youth participation in community evaluation research. Am J Eval. 2003;24(1):21–33.10.1177/109821400302400103
100. Scheve JA Perkins DF Mincemoyer C Collaborative teams for youth engagement J Community Pract 2006 14 1–2 219 234 10.1300/J125v14n01_13
Scheve JA, Perkins DF, Mincemoyer C. Collaborative teams for youth engagement. J Community Pract. 2006;14(1–2):219–34.10.1300/J125v14n01_13
101. Sheikhan NY Hawke LD Cleverley K Darnay K Courey L Szatmari P ‘It reshaped how I will do research’: a qualitative exploration of team members’ experiences with youth and family engagement in a randomized controlled trial Health Expect 2021 24 2 589 600 10.1111/hex.13206 33587827
Sheikhan NY, Hawke LD, Cleverley K, Darnay K, Courey L, Szatmari P, et al. ‘It reshaped how I will do research’: a qualitative exploration of team members’ experiences with youth and family engagement in a randomized controlled trial. Health Expect. 2021;24(2):589–600.33587827 10.1111/hex.13206
102. Augsberger A Collins ME Gecker W Dougher M Youth civic engagement: do youth councils reduce or reinforce social inequality? J Adolesc Res 2018 33 2 187 208 10.1177/0743558416684957
Augsberger A, Collins ME, Gecker W, Dougher M. Youth civic engagement: do youth councils reduce or reinforce social inequality? J Adolesc Res. 2018;33(2):187–208.10.1177/0743558416684957
103. Buchanan F Peasgood A Easton M Haas K Narayanan U The Research Family Advisory Committee: the patient and family view of implementing a research-focused patient engagement strategy Res Involv Engagem 2022 8 1 2 10.1186/s40900-022-00335-z 35123574
Buchanan F, Peasgood A, Easton M, Haas K, Narayanan U. The Research Family Advisory Committee: the patient and family view of implementing a research-focused patient engagement strategy. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):2.35123574 10.1186/s40900-022-00335-z
104. Boivin A L’Espérance A Gauvin FP Dumez V Macaulay AC Lehoux P Abelson J Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: a systematic review of evaluation tools Health Expect 2018 21 6 1075 1084 10.1111/hex.12804 30062858
Boivin A, L’Espérance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, Abelson J. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: a systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075–84.30062858 10.1111/hex.12804
105. ReachBC. Reach BC. 2023. Available from: https://reachbc.ca/.
106. Wang L Micsinszki SK Goulet-Barteaux M Gilman C Phoenix M Youth and family engagement in childhood disability evidence syntheses: a scoping review Child Care Health Dev 2023 49 1 20 35 10.1111/cch.13022 35708523
Wang L, Micsinszki SK, Goulet-Barteaux M, Gilman C, Phoenix M. Youth and family engagement in childhood disability evidence syntheses: a scoping review. Child Care Health Dev. 2023;49(1):20–35.35708523 10.1111/cch.13022
107. Fayant G Christmas C Donnelly E Auger A Ethical research engagement with indigenous youth: seven requirements 2020 Toronto Yellowhead Institute, Toronto Metropoliton University
Fayant G, Christmas C, Donnelly E, Auger A. Ethical research engagement with indigenous youth: seven requirements. Toronto: Yellowhead Institute, Toronto Metropoliton University; 2020.
108. Anderson K Gall A Butler T Arley B Howard K Cass A Garvey G Using web conferencing to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in research: a feasibility study BMC Med Res Methodol 2021 21 1 172 10.1186/s12874-021-01366-y 34404354
Anderson K, Gall A, Butler T, Arley B, Howard K, Cass A, Garvey G. Using web conferencing to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in research: a feasibility study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):172.34404354 10.1186/s12874-021-01366-y
109. Bessarab D Ng'andu B Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research Int J Crit Indig Stud 2010 3 1 37 50
Bessarab D, Ng’andu B. Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research. Int J Crit Indig Stud. 2010;3(1):37–50.
110. Sayani A Maybee A Manthorne J Nicholson E Bloch G Parsons JA Hwang SW Shaw JA Lofters A Equity-mobilizing partnerships in community (EMPaCT): co-designing patient engagement to promote health equity Healthc Q 2022 24 Special Issue 86 92 10.12927/hcq.2022.26768 35467517
Sayani A, Maybee A, Manthorne J, Nicholson E, Bloch G, Parsons JA, Hwang SW, Shaw JA, Lofters A. Equity-mobilizing partnerships in community (EMPaCT): co-designing patient engagement to promote health equity. Healthc Q. 2022;24(Special Issue):86–92.35467517 10.12927/hcq.2022.26768
111. Sayani A. Equity-mobilizing partnerships in community (EMPaCT). Toronto: Women’s College Hospital; 2023. Available from: https://www.wchwihv.ca/our-work/empact/.
112. Roche P Shimmin C Hickes S Khan M Sherzoi O Wicklund E Valuing All Voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach Res Involv Engagem 2020 6 1 42 10.1186/s40900-020-00217-2 32699647
Roche P, Shimmin C, Hickes S, Khan M, Sherzoi O, Wicklund E, et al. Valuing All Voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):42.32699647 10.1186/s40900-020-00217-2
113. Service NH Increasing diversity in research participation: a good practice guide for engaging with underrepresented groups 2023
Service NH. Increasing diversity in research participation: a good practice guide for engaging with underrepresented groups. 2023.
114. CIHR. CIHR guidelines for health research involving Aboriginal people. 2007. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29134.html.
115. Esmail L Moore E Rein A Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice J Comp Eff Res 2015 4 2 133 145 10.2217/cer.14.79 25825842
Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4(2):133–45.25825842 10.2217/cer.14.79
116. Abelson J Humphrey A Syrowatka A Bidonde J Judd M Evaluating patient, family and public engagement in health services improvement and system redesign Healthc Q 2018 21 Sp 61 7 10.12927/hcq.2018.25636 30566406
Abelson J, Humphrey A, Syrowatka A, Bidonde J, Judd M. Evaluating patient, family and public engagement in health services improvement and system redesign. Healthc Q. 2018;21(Sp):61–7.30566406 10.12927/hcq.2018.25636
117. Hamilton CB Hoens AM McQuitty S McKinnon AM English K Backman CL Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective PLoS One 2018 13 11 e0206588 10.1371/journal.pone.0206588 30383823
Hamilton CB, Hoens AM, McQuitty S, McKinnon AM, English K, Backman CL, et al. Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0206588.30383823 10.1371/journal.pone.0206588
118. Zeldin S Krauss SE Collura J Lucchesi M Sulaiman AH Conceptualizing and measuring youth-adult partnership in community programs: a cross national study Am J Community Psychol 2014 54 3–4 337 347 10.1007/s10464-014-9676-9 25216734
Zeldin S, Krauss SE, Collura J, Lucchesi M, Sulaiman AH. Conceptualizing and measuring youth-adult partnership in community programs: a cross national study. Am J Community Psychol. 2014;54(3–4):337–47.25216734 10.1007/s10464-014-9676-9
119. Wu H-CJ Kornbluh M Weiss JC Roddy L Measuring and understanding authentic youth engagement: the youth-adult partnership rubric. Afterschool matters 2016
Wu H-CJ, Kornbluh M, Weiss JC, Roddy L. Measuring and understanding authentic youth engagement: the youth-adult partnership rubric. Afterschool matters. 2016.
120. Krauss SE Collura J Zeldin S Ortega A Abdullah H Sulaiman AH Youth–adult partnership: exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and community connections in Malaysian youth programs J Youth Adolesc 2014 43 9 1550 1562 10.1007/s10964-013-0027-1 24122395
Krauss SE, Collura J, Zeldin S, Ortega A, Abdullah H, Sulaiman AH. Youth–adult partnership: exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and community connections in Malaysian youth programs. J Youth Adolesc. 2014;43(9):1550–62.24122395 10.1007/s10964-013-0027-1
121. Services AH. A resource toolkit for engaging patient and families at the planning table. 2014. Available from: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/pf/pe/if-pf-pe-engage-toolkit.pdf.
122. Unit ASS. PaCER – patient and community engagement research. 2023. Available from: https://absporu.ca/patient-engagement/pacer/.
123. CanChild. Family engagement in research (FER) course. 2023. Available from: https://www.canchild.ca/en/research-in-practice/family-engagement-program/fer-course.
124. Macarthur C Walsh CM Buchanan F Karoly A Pires L McCreath G Jones NL Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH) Res Involv Engagem 2021 7 1 27 10.1186/s40900-021-00276-z 33971980
Macarthur C, Walsh CM, Buchanan F, Karoly A, Pires L, McCreath G, Jones NL. Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH). Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):27.33971980 10.1186/s40900-021-00276-z
125. Courvoisier M Baddeliyanage R Wilhelm L Bayliss L Straus SE Fahim C Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research Res Involv Engagem 2021 7 1 76 10.1186/s40900-021-00316-8 34717764
Courvoisier M, Baddeliyanage R, Wilhelm L, Bayliss L, Straus SE, Fahim C. Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):76.34717764 10.1186/s40900-021-00316-8
126. Micsinszki SK Tanel NL Kowal J King G Menna-Dack D Chu A Phoenix M Codesigning simulations and analyzing the process to ascertain principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement in childhood disability research Res Involv Engagem 2022 8 1 60 10.1186/s40900-022-00398-y 36352487
Micsinszki SK, Tanel NL, Kowal J, King G, Menna-Dack D, Chu A, Phoenix M. Codesigning simulations and analyzing the process to ascertain principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement in childhood disability research. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):60.36352487 10.1186/s40900-022-00398-y
127. Harpur P Nothing about us without us: the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities 2017
Harpur P. Nothing about us without us: the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2017.
