Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network.

Keywords Co-production, peer research, citizen science, community-based, participatory, built environment, qualitative. ALL Metrics - Views Downloads How to cite this article Mahmood N, McEachan RRC, Lockyer B et al. Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13886.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Study Protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Nazish Mahmood https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5663-101X 1, Rosemary R. C. McEachan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1302-6675 1,2, Bridget Lockyer1, [...] Chloe Parekh1, Chris Cartwright1, Daniel Balaz3, Gulsoom Akhtar4, Jennifer Hall1,5,6, Lauren Batty7, Tahira Amin8, Zille Huma Dogra1, Shahid Islam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7424-4011 1,2Nazish Mahmood https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5663-101X 1, Rosemary R. C. McEachan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1302-6675 1,2, [...] Bridget Lockyer1, Chloe Parekh1, Chris Cartwright1, Daniel Balaz3, Gulsoom Akhtar4, Jennifer Hall1,5,6, Lauren Batty7, Tahira Amin8, Zille Huma Dogra1, Shahid Islam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7424-4011 1,2 PUBLISHED 02 Apr 2025 Author details Author details 1 Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, England, UK 2 University of Bradford, Bradford, England, UK 3 Connected Roma C.I.C, Bradford, UK 4 Bradford Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK 5 Bradford Centre for Qualitative Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK 6 Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK 7 OutLOUD LTD, Bradford, UK 8 Abilities Together, Bradford, UK 2 University of Bradford, Bradford, England, UK 3 Connected Roma C.I.C, Bradford, UK 4 Bradford Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK 5 Bradford Centre for Qualitative Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK 6 Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK 7 OutLOUD LTD, Bradford, UK 8 Abilities Together, Bradford, UK Nazish Mahmood Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rosemary R. C. McEachan Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Bridget Lockyer Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Chloe Parekh Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Chris Cartwright Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Daniel Balaz Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Gulsoom Akhtar Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Jennifer Hall Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Lauren Batty Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Tahira Amin Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Zille Huma Dogra Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Shahid Islam Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS Community inclusive approaches in research contribute to the quality and impact of health outcomes, yet communities often lack considerable influence over research processes. The Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network aims to redress this gap by fostering equitable partnerships between communities, researchers, and policymakers. This paper outlines the protocol for establishing the CoPPeR network in Bradford, UK, where community-driven research initiatives are crucial for addressing local health disparities. We will implement four work-packages using participatory research methods and citizen science approaches. We will collaborate with four community organisations, each located in geographically distinct neighbourhoods serving diverse communities. Together we will co-produce citizen science projects to explore the impact of local environments on residents’ health and wellbeing. We will build capacity through providing funding and training to community organisations who will recruit 20 peer researchers across the four areas to design, implement, and analyse their individual research projects. We will co-evaluate the co-production processes in a concomitant way through stakeholder workshops. Finally, we will explore the readiness and opportunities for statutory health and research partners to embed the CoPPeR network. Anticipated results include comprehensive case studies revealing the factors which affect health and wellbeing in each of the case study sites along with the mechanisms of co-production strategies for enhancing community influence in research. The evaluation will provide us with evidence on what works for which communities; this will be crucial to support our plans for developing a network to augment efforts to advance community inclusive approaches. The CoPPeR network aims to enable long-term sustainable partnership between researchers, decision makers and seldom heard communities which will enable effective co-production of research and policy. By detailing our experiences and outcomes we hope that others, both in the UK and internationally, can learn from and replicate our approach. Involving communities leads to better research outcomes, yet communities often lack influence over research that affects them directly. This project aims to develop new methods that help communities, researchers, and organisations to work together as equal partners. In Bradford, local communities have highlighted the built environment such as their neighbourhoods and living areas as important to health. This study will empower local groups to use walk-along interviews to explore both the positive and negative aspects of their environments and propose necessary improvements. Four community organisations from distinct areas of Bradford will be supported to investigate how their local environments affect residents' health and well-being. This initiative will include diverse groups such as Asylum Seekers, Eastern European Roma, economically disadvantaged White British, and Pakistani communities. These organisations will receive funding, training, and support from researchers to make the community-led research impactful and meaningful. This collaborative method, known as co-production, is designed to generate results that resonate with local needs and attract potential funding for suggested improvements. By partnering with trusted community organisations that serve diverse ethnic groups, this project will provide opportunities for seldom heard groups to lead efforts in enhancing their local environments. Additionally, this collaboration will strengthen the capacity of these organisations to conduct further research on other community concerns. We will co-evaluate the implementation and impact of community-based research projects across four partner organisations, to understand what worked well and identify any barriers. This reflective process will refine the methods and ensure each stage of the project remains responsive to community needs. Following these activities, a workshop will bring all partners together to integrate insights and inform best practices, further developing the Co-production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) approach and supporting the creation of a sustainable network for ongoing community-led research. Co-production, peer research, citizen science, community-based, participatory, built environment, qualitative. Corresponding Author(s) Nazish Mahmood ([email protected]) Grant information: This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its [‘Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme’ (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-NIHR205188)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © Crown copyright, 2025 Mahmood N et al.. This open access work is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 How to cite: Mahmood N, McEachan RRC, Lockyer B et al. Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13886.1) First published: 02 Apr 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13886.1) Latest published: 02 Apr 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13886.1) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Public engagement in research, often referred to as patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), is heralded as best practice for enhancing the relevance, quality, and impact of research (Ball et al., 2019; Beresford, 2019). Effective PPIE can lead to more efficient use of resources by targeting key research priorities, thereby increasing the likelihood of impactful outcomes (Milton et al., 2012). Additionally, it fosters the development of interventions that are more valuable and culturally appropriate, which can increase community interest and participation in research (Green, 2016). However, successful community engagement requires significant resources and infrastructure support. A deeper understanding of which approaches work best in different contexts is essential to fully realise the benefits of community-inclusive methods (Islam & Small, 2020). One approach that has gained traction in recent years is co-production; whilst there is not a single definition for co-production (Boyle et al., 2010) it is often described as a collaborative endeavour that is context-dependent and requires building both trust (Albert et al., 2023) and a collaborative ethos amongst partners (Ryan et al., 2024). Co-production, although not easily defined as a single method, represents a value-driven way of working that is contingent on a diverse range of skills and expertise from all co-producers. Despite the potential for improving research and interventions, there is a notable paucity in the evaluation of co-production. This gap presents challenges in determining effectiveness of different approaches and in understanding the mechanisms necessary for effective implementation. These epistemological challenges stem from the deterministic nature of how we measure impact and correlations. The quote often attributed to Einstein – “not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”- is particularly relevant to co-production, where outcomes such as trust, shared responsibility, collaborative ethos, harmony and influence, which are considered 'soft' metrics, are inherently difficult to measure (Brix et al., 2020). Evidence from various evaluations highlight that interventions introduced to reduce health inequalities do not always serve as a ‘silver bullet’ solution (Craig et al., 2008; Macintyre, 2003; Macintyre, 2011). One possible explanation for this lack of success is the often-superficial focus on community involvement in the development of these interventions. When people are merely consulted to offer opinions on a pre-decided idea, this amounts to rubber-stamping a decision rather than involving people in a genuinely democratic process. This issue is thoroughly explored by Green in her paper evocatively titled “Power to the people: To what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this?”(Green, 2016). At the heart of this discussion, we can hear echoes of the social philosopher John Dewey, “who rightly emphasised the distinction between ‘doing with’ and ‘doing for’ when working with people” (as cited in Putnam, 2000, p.116). In light of these challenges, we recently developed a co-production strategy (Albert et al., 2023; Islam et al., 2022) to guide researchers and stakeholders through the application of an appreciative inquiry model. We spoke to nearly 100 people based across two case study sites in Bradford, and Tower Hamlets, to understand best practice in working with seldom heard communities with the application of co-production. After carefully analysing the collected data, we identified three core values: (1) equality, (2) enhancing and widening agency, and (3) reciprocity. These values are operationalised through nine principles: 1) power sharing, 2) incorporating a diversity of voices, 3) respecting lived experience, 4) going to communities where they are, 5) working flexibly, 6) avoiding jargon, 7) ensuring mutual benefits, 8) fostering long-term relationships, and 9) securing adequate resources, see Figure 1. One key recommendation outlined in the co-production strategy (Albert et al., 2023) was to create a sustainable network that would connect communities with researchers, stakeholders, and decision-makers. Such a network would aim to build community capacity and a culture of co-production with research. This was timely as a recently published national report published by the Cares Foundation and Power to Change highlighted that “71% of UK adults say they have no or not much control over important decisions that affect their neighbourhood and local community” (Plumb & Bell, 2021, p.28). Resolving this mismatch is crucial, as numerous systematic reviews have demonstrated strong links between public involvement and service improvements (Cyril et al., 2015) as well as a reduction in health inequalities that can be realised through such an approach (O’Mara-Eves et al., 2015). We envisage that the establishment of the CoPPeR network will provide a solid platform for communities to play an active role in research thereby realising these outcomes. This study aims to action the recommendation of developing a sustainable network through establishing a Centre for Co-production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) which will lead the initiative by using co-production methods to collaboratively identify research priorities and actions with communities. We will collaborate with community organisations, enabling them to engage with statutory health and research partners within the district. This approach will lay the foundation for diverse communities, particularly those with limited prior engagement with research, to develop research skills and experiences. Our hope is to inspire a new generation of researchers who will build relationships with partner organisations, such as the local authorities and health services to tackle issues of health and social inequalities. This protocol outlines approaches we will apply to address these challenges and advance the application of co-production approaches. Our aims are to: 1. Develop long-term relationships with key community organisations who work with seldom heard groups. 2. Work with four community organisations to implement place-based citizen science peer research projects with the communities they serve and build organisational capacity for research. 3. Explore barriers and enablers to effective co-production and peer research with seldom heard communities using rapid co-evaluation methods. 4. Co-produce a sustainable model for the Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network with communities, voluntary sector organisations, decision makers and researchers. 5. Explore readiness to embed the CoPPeR network within research and statutory organisations across Bradford, with a view to then expanding into other areas within the Yorkshire and Humber region. 6. Explore the impact of resourcing and incentivising community organisations to conduct co-production and citizen science and how this helps or hinders progress. This study has been developed in partnership with four community organisations and their members to incorporate meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) throughout its design, implementation, and dissemination. At the outset, these organisations were consulted to provide input on our plans for the study, facilitated by the Principal Investigator (Shahid), who engaged with them individually. We worked closely with these four community organisations in developing this research, collaborating with their community co-ordinators to formulate research questions and data collection processes. During this process, they identified training and mentoring as crucial components for both their organisations and peer researchers, as well as the need for sustainable approaches so that these efforts remain effective beyond the project. Each organisation engaged with its community to seek advice on the focus of the co-production research. There was agreement across all four organisations, based on input from both community co-ordinators and local residents, that improving local environments and neighbourhoods should be a priority. Peer researchers and community co-ordinators, who are also public members, will play a central role in shaping the study’s design and conduct. Drawing on their lived experience as local community members, peer researchers will help refine priorities and maintain the scope of the research so that it reflects community needs. This will be achieved through locally organised workshops and monthly steering meetings with community co-ordinators to discuss project development, monitor progress, and plan impactful dissemination strategies. Recruitment to the study was decided with the community co-ordinators who have been involved in the study from the outset. Strategies to engage participants will be further co-designed with peer researchers, focusing on making participation accessible and inclusive in line with unique needs of each community they represent. Further details on this approach are provided below. Community co-ordinators are named as co-authors in recognition of their contributions to the research. The study relies on the engagement and expertise of peer researchers and participants, whose involvement is integral to its success. Setting. Bradford is one of the largest metropolitan districts in England, with a population of over 560,000, including 27.9% under the age of 20. The district is highly diverse, with 25.5% of the population identifying as Pakistani, the second highest proportion nationally. 2% identify as Black and 61.1% identify as White British (City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, 2025). Bradford faces significant socio-economic challenges with forty percent of its residents living in areas ranked within the most deprived quintile nationally (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019). This deprivation is closely linked to higher-than-average levels of ill health and health inequalities. These spatial inequalities result in deprived areas experiencing significantly higher environmental burdens, including air pollution, limited access to green spaces, and elevated traffic levels (Mueller et al., 2018). Research within the city highlights the wider impacts of environmental stressors, particularly on maternal and child health. Limited access to green spaces is associated with increased stress levels (McEachan et al., 2016; McEachan et al., 2018). Exposure to air pollution has been linked to respiratory issues and restricted fetal growth, (Mebrahtu et al., 2023; Pedersen et al., 2013). An estimated 10% of annual premature deaths (approximately 375 deaths) can be attributed to non-compliance with international guidelines on air and noise pollution, leading to over 300 days of life expectancy lost for each person in Bradford (Mueller et al., 2018). Poorly designed urban environments exacerbate these challenges by restricting opportunities for active living and compounding risks associated with socio-economic deprivation (Binter et al., 2022; Vrijheid et al., 2020; Warembourg et al., 2021). Built and natural environment. Research with seldom-heard communities has identified the built and natural environment (BNE) as a key priority for communities to improve health and wellbeing (Cartwright et al., 2023; Cronin-de-Chavez et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2021; Wright et al., 2019). The built environment provides a tangible and relatable focus for a co-production study by offering a framework for exploring issues that directly affect communities. Previous research has highlighted several community concerns, including pollution, road safety, poor housing quality, walkability and the increasing prevalence of fast-food outlets (Ortegon-Sanchez et al., 2022; Rashid et al., 2021; Ucci et al., 2022). These community concerns are matched by a growing body of empirical evidence which demonstrate the significant influence of the BNE on health outcomes (Ortegon-Sanchez et al., 2021). The BNE affects population health both directly (e.g., through polluted air or damp housing) and indirectly (e.g., by limiting physical activity or access to green spaces). These factors contribute to non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancer, and diabetes (Wright et al., 2013). A consistent finding in this extensive body of research is the clustering and compounding relationship in health inequalities. Poorer neighbourhoods are also the same places which are exposed to higher rates of air pollution, lower quality green spaces, a greater number of fast-food outlets and more dangerous roads. These clustered factors ‘act in concert’ to negatively impact health outcomes, including quality of life and longevity (Marmot et al., 2012; Marmot & Bell, 2012; Wright et al., 2013). Interventions to improve the BNE may improve health and reduce inequalities, but there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of built environment infrastructure changes on health and the extent to which communities have been involved in developing these. This study is composed of four work packages that apply the principles and values outlined in the co-production strategy. See Figure 2. Work Package 1 involves conducting citizen science case studies in four distinctive Bradford neighbourhoods, focusing on the built and natural environment to explore the best processes for engaging Bradford's seldom heard communities in co-producing research. For each group, a community co-ordinator, mentored by the research team, will recruit five peer researchers who will together design, implement, and analyse a citizen science research project. The findings will be disseminated to their neighbourhoods and decision-makers to advocate for policy changes. Work Package 2 will conduct co-evaluation of case studies through participatory workshops, facilitated discussions and activity observations to identify enablers and barriers in the co-production processes as described above in WP1. The analysis will focus on what worked (or did not), considering feasibility, acceptability, and impact, as well as contextual influences. Work Package 3 will bring together peer researchers, community organisations, and broader stakeholders in a workshop to 'dream' and 'design' the key features of the Co-production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network, integrating insights from Work Packages 1 and 2. Work Package 4 will explore the readiness and opportunity for statutory health and research partners to embed the CoPPeR network within their areas of work. We plan to co-produce four citizen science case studies on the relationship between the built and natural environment and health in collaboration with community organisations that specialise in engaging under-served groups, including Pakistani, asylum seekers and refugees, Eastern European Roma, and White British communities. We selected these four diverse Bradford communities based on their distinct identities and geographical locations to achieve broad inclusivity (Table 1). The organisations, chosen for their expertise and established relationships within their communities, are actively addressing local issues such as food insecurity, welfare support, and access to sport and leisure. | Place | Manningham & Girlington | Horton Park & City | East and West Bowling | Holmewood | | Target population | Pakistani communities with origins from Mirpur and Azad Kashmir. | Refugee and Asylum seeker communities settled in the three wards that surround Horton Park. | Central and Eastern European Roma communities. | Low-income White British communities. | | Ward | Manningham Population: 21,180 62.7% identify as Pakistani Ranked as most deprived ward in the district. | Great Horton Population: 19,110 48.8% identify as Pakistani Ranked as 9th most deprived ward in the district. | Bowling and Barkerend Population: 22,490 39.9% identity as Pakistani Ranked as 3rd most deprived ward. | Tong Population: 21,270 78.5% identify as White Ranked 8th most deprived ward. (Holmewood is located in Tong ward and comprises one of the largest Housing Estates in the UK). | Each organisation will appoint a community co-ordinator for this research who will actively contribute to the study design and support their community in developing their citizen science projects and methods. The community co-ordinator will be responsible for all elements of the research process. The esoteric knowledge they hold about their communities will enable us to tailor the research to the specific needs and contexts of each community. For this study, the research team and the community organisations will collaborate to co-produce a range of hyper-local, community led co-production and peer research projects exploring community priorities related to urban environments that can affect health. We will follow the values/principles of our co-production strategy (Islam et al., 2022) in all activities to focus on some key research questions. Case study research questions: 1. What features of the urban environment do communities prioritise for health? 2. What spatial injustices do communities experience and what do they think will lead to improvements? We anticipate that the answers to these questions will reveal many commonalities but also differences based on the geographical areas and cultural contexts in which the neighbourhoods are located. We are not seeking consensus amongst the four areas but rather providing the latitude needed to focus on urban environment-related priorities and needs specific to the residents of each area. Therefore, differences in perspectives and experiences will be expected. Data collection will involve guided walks using the citizen science toolkits chosen by peer researchers and community co-ordinators. Walk-along interviews, conducted by peer researchers who will accompany participants (residents) through their neighbourhood to gather real-time insights. Each peer researcher will be supported by their co-ordinator to recruit 10 participants from their local area and conduct 10 individual walk-along interviews. With five peer researchers per area, this will result in 50 walk-along interviews per organisation and a total of 200 walk-along interviews across the study. Peer researchers will be encouraged to document the environment by capturing photographs to contextualise their responses. For example, participants could take photographs of areas they value such as well-maintained green spaces, or locations they find problematic such as fly-tipping hot-spots. Participants will have opportunities to explain the significance of their photographs through written comments or voice recordings, providing richer context and insights about their local environment. App-based toolkits will be made available to facilitate audio and visual recordings. However, recording this way will not be compulsory as some people may have reasons for not engaging with technology. In such cases we will provide alternatives such as pen-and-paper methods. This flexibility allows each group to tailor the method to their preferences while ensuring the data collection aligns with the study's objectives. At the end of the walk, participants will engage in a post-walk discussion to reflect on any topics which may have not surfaced during the walk. These discussions will be audio-recorded, however, participants who prefer not to have their voices recorded can opt for manual documentation in which case peer researchers will manually record written notes. Whilst our approach is guided by a preference for walk-along interviews using technology to capture data, we have not set this in stone, as co-production is a crucial cornerstone of this research. It is therefore essential to that community co-ordinators and peer researchers can influence the most appropriate and effective ways to collect data. This notwithstanding, each group will co-design the questions and topics for discussion during the interviews, ensuring they are tailored to the priorities and lived experiences of their community. Peer researchers, community co-ordinators, and BIB researchers will collaboratively develop these questions and prompts to reflect the unique needs and concerns of each area. Additionally, each group will have the option to structure their interviews as open-ended, semi-structured, or to utilise simplified approaches combining photographs and audio recordings. In cases where walk-along interviews are not feasible, the study will explore reasonable adjustments to support inclusivity and accessibility. Alternative methods will be developed to maintain the study's objectives while accommodating participants’ preferences and contexts. Each community co-ordinator will establish a place-based action group by recruiting five peer researchers aged 16 and above from their respective areas, resulting in a total of 20 peer researchers across the study. Community co-ordinators will endeavour to recruit peer researchers that reflect the diversity and key characteristics of the target community. Community co-ordinators will utilise standard practices of their community organisation, leveraging established channels and local connections to advertise the role. Recruitment will focus on lived experience to attract individuals with relevant insights. Peer researchers will dedicate a minimum of 30 hours to activities including training, data collection, analysis and dissemination of findings. They will be compensated for their time at an hourly rate equivalent to minimum wage and reimbursed for any expenses incurred during the research process. Potential peer researchers will receive an information sheet outlining the project’s purpose, study objectives, role responsibilities, and time commitments. Community co-ordinators will explain the study to potential peer researchers, who will then have a week to consider the role before signing the consent form. An initial meeting will be held with community co-ordinators and research team to outline project parameters, establish expectations, and collaboratively develop research questions and objectives. When each neighbourhood has recruited the desired number of peer researchers then an initial meeting between members of the research team, the community co-ordinators and the peer researchers will be organised to set out the parameters of the project, set expectations and to formulate plans for co-productive ways of working. This will be organised separately for each of the four constituent areas which will provide an opportunity to allow peer researchers and community co-ordinators to define community priorities with respect to the built and natural environment and to scope relevant research questions. The research team, consisting of a community engagement research fellow and a senior research fellow specialising in citizen science, will provide mentorship and training to both the community co-ordinators and peer researchers. They will support peer researchers with the necessary resources to support rigorous research and facilitate its completion within the designated timeline. All peer researchers (n = 20) and community co-ordinators (n = 4) will participate in two workshop-style training sessions. Additional support sessions will be arranged to address emerging needs of each group. These sessions will be designed to encourage collaboration, build skills, and maintain relevance to each community. Training session 1: Introduction and co-production principles. The first session will introduce peer researchers to the Born in Bradford initiative and the aims of the CoPPeR project. This will emphasise the importance of co-production and how local and community priorities will guide the research process. Peer researchers, community co-ordinators, and the research team will work collaboratively to identify key issues related to the built and natural environment, focusing on existing challenges, community needs, and local perspectives. Mind mapping for community priorities and interview questions. Participatory activities will utilise mind mapping techniques (Burgess-Allen & Owen-Smith, 2010), enabling peer researchers to explore and articulate community priorities in a visually accessible format. This same approach will be used to generate and refine potential interview questions, ensuring they address the topics and concerns most relevant to each neighbourhood. Through mapping of possible themes and sub-themes, peer researchers will clearly see how their priorities align with specific questions. Developing interview and survey tools. Based on the priorities identified through mind mapping, peer researchers, community co-ordinators and Born in Bradford (BiB) researchers will develop walk-along interview questions. Each organisation will co-produce a topic guide or survey, depending on their chosen methods, to ensure questions reflect the lived experiences of their community. This process will be iterative, providing opportunities to refine both the wording and focus of questions, making them appropriate for each neighbourhood’s context and aligned with its built and natural environment priorities. Training session 2: research skills and ethics. The second session will focus on equipping peer researchers and community co-ordinators with essential research skills and ethical principles to conduct community research effectively. Topics will include safeguarding, informed consent, data confidentiality and secure data handling protocols. Training will also address risk assessment during fieldwork and provide hands-on experience using data collection tools, such as mobile devices for capturing real-time data through surveys, photographs, and voice recordings. A significant component of this session will focus on research methods, including how to conduct interviews effectively, promote non-leading questioning and engage participants in an unbiased manner. Recruitment strategies will also be explored, guiding peer researchers on how to engage diverse participants while adhering to safety protocols. This structured yet iterative approach will equip both community co-ordinators and peer researchers to be thoroughly prepared for ethical, effective data collection and fieldwork. The research team will provide all necessary equipment, including tools for data collection. Additional support sessions will be planned to address challenges, remind people about training content, and help peer researchers and co-ordinators feel confident in their roles. Peer researchers will collaborate with their community co-ordinators to recruit participants. Each peer researcher will recruit ten local community members aged 16 and above through purposive sampling, selecting individuals who reside within the target community within one of the four designated local areas. The boundaries of these areas will not be strictly defined, allowing residents to self-identify as belonging to the locality and community. Community co-ordinators will oversee the recruitment strategy, support peer researchers with logistical planning and provide guidance on engaging potential participants. They will also prevent duplication and ensure comprehensive coverage of different neighbourhoods within the research locations, reducing the likelihood of recruiting participants from a single concentrated area. Additionally, recruitment efforts will focus on achieving diversity in age and gender to create a more representative demographic for each community. Peer researchers will utilise their personal networks and the connections of their community organisations to identity and reach potential participants. These networks may include local faith-based organisations such as churches and mosques, neighbourhood groups and other community-focused initiatives. Community co-ordinators will also leverage their connections to identify potential participants who access services provided by the community organisations they represent. Both peer researchers and community co-ordinators will draw on their knowledge of local customs, languages and practices to build trust and encourage participation. Potential participants will be approached by peer researchers with an information sheet outlining the study’s purpose, objectives, and procedures. Participants will have one week to consider their involvement. If interested, they will complete an interest form by providing their contact information, language needs and any vulnerabilities. Following this the peer researcher and participant will arrange a data and time for the walk-along interview. All participant information will remain strictly confidential and will be shared only with the community co-ordinator. The route for the walk-along interview will be collaboratively determined by participants and peer researchers. Participants may select a site of personal significance or opt for a route suggested by the peer researcher, who will possess detailed knowledge of the area. This collaborative process aims to include sites meaningful to the participant, enhancing the relevance of the walk-along interview. Before the walk-along interview begins, participants will provide written informed consent by reviewing the information sheet, having an opportunity to ask questions and completing the participant consent form. Data will be collected during walk-along interview using methods, toolkits and questions developed by each group, focusing on the built and natural environment of the area. Participants will have the opportunity to take photographs and document observations as they explore their neighbourhoods. At the conclusion of the walk, participants will be invited to reflect on their experience and share additional thoughts. This feedback may be audio recorded with their verbal consent or the peer researcher may document it using written notes, based on the participants preference. As an acknowledgement of their time and contribution to the study, participants will receive a £20 gift voucher upon completion of the walk-along interview. Safeguarding and risk assessment. Before conducting the walk-along interviews, safeguarding and risk assessment measures will be finalised. These will include chaperone requirements for vulnerable participants, safety protocols such as recording interview start and end times and addressing equity issues such as language needs. Participants aged 16–18 or those identified as vulnerable will be accompanied by a companion who will remain present throughout the interview but will not participate in the research. The community co-ordinator will approve the walk-along interview routes, maintain a detailed log of participants and oversee the implementation of safeguarding protocols. Data management. After the data is recorded, it will be securely stored on a NHS Trust approved, password-protected computer system, with pseudonyms used in place of real names to protect participant identity. The research data will only be accessible to authorised members of the research team involved in the study. The collected data will be recorded and stored in several formats. Photographs and geo-locational data will be captured via a web-based tool, which will store responses in a secure online system accessible to the research team through a password-protected platform. Audio recordings from the walk-along interviews will be downloaded onto a secure computer system. These recordings will be transcribed by an approved transcription service, and the verbatim transcripts will be securely stored on a restricted-access server accessible only to the research team. Once the interview transcripts are completed, all audio recordings will be permanently deleted from both the audio recorders and the digital storage systems. The four peer research groups and their respective community co-ordinators will attend individual workshops to facilitate the process of analysing the collected data, which may include written quotes, photographs, maps, audio recordings. Each group will collaborate with the research team to identify key points of discovery and determine how the data can be categorised and synthesised through thematic analysis. The research team will draw on expertise in qualitative data analysis (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002) to provide training and ongoing support throughout this process. The analysis will follow a deductive approach, guided by the framework developed during the co-design phase, when peer researchers and community co-ordinators identified key community priorities and themes (Gale et al., 2013). While this framework will serve as a guiding structure, it will remain flexible to incorporate any additional themes or insights that emerge from the data. During the workshops, peer researchers and community co-ordinators will review the summaries of walk-along interview transcripts, survey responses and notable quotes to generate initial codes which will then be organised into thematic maps. These maps will illustrate relationships among codes and highlight three to five core priorities. Workshops will be audio-recorded to ensure peer researchers’ insights are accurately captured. Photographs taken from walk-along interviews will be analysed using the Photovoice SHOWED method (Wang & Burris, 1997). By selecting and interpreting images in relation to the identified priorities, peer researchers will enrich the thematic maps with visual context. Through this combined framework analysis, thematic mapping and photo analysis process, a participatory and contextually grounded understanding of the data will emerge. Each community organisation’s data will be treated as a distinct entity, reflecting the unique priorities and findings of their specific area. The case study groups will be supported to create outputs from the work they have undertaken, and this will include creating blogs, short reports, PowerPoint presentations and infographics. The aim will be to reach a variety of audiences including local residents, councillors, schools and faith organisations to share the findings from their locally focussed research. The research team will support the creation of dissemination materials including presentations, briefing notes and manifestoes for change. At this stage each of the four groups of peer researchers will decide how to work together to create a formal report. Lead community organisations, through the community co-ordinator will support advocacy for change using the research outputs and will draw on the support of the peer researchers in getting this message to a variety of audiences. It is possible that each of the four community organisations will do this differently to each other. Using the case studies described in WP1, we will explore the barriers and enablers to co-production and peer research with seldom-heard communities. This evaluation will focus on identifying which features of the citizen science and co-production systems are useful, practical, and feasible through the co-evaluation of WP1 activities. The primary purpose of the evaluation is to develop a framework for the most appropriate and effective ways of working with communities when delivering co-produced research. We will use these insights to design the Centre for Co-production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) Network, which will embody all the values and principles outlined in the co-production strategy (Albert et al., 2023; Islam et al., 2022). The evaluation component of this project will focus on the following three questions: 1. To what extent were our co-production strategy values/ principles achieved and what were barriers or enablers to enacting these values/principles? 2. Which elements and mechanisms of research through co-production methods were acceptable, feasible and impactful for our community organisations and which were not? 3. How did contextual factors (such as place, language, literacy skills) influence alignment with guiding principles, acceptability, feasibility and impact? We will employ a co-evaluation approach, collaborating with the community organisations to develop the expectations, objectives and impacts of the evaluation while promoting transparency and openness (Kieslinger et al., 2022). The evaluation will run concurrently with work package 1, enabling real-time adaptations to the process (see Figure 3). Community organisations will be actively involved in delivering aspects of the evaluation and will receive relevant training and support on evaluation systems which will be delivered through workshop-based learning. The co-production and community engagement research fellow, all peer researchers and community co-ordinators will be invited to participate and contribute their knowledge to this part of the study as evaluation stakeholders. The BiB researcher will provide participant information sheets detailing the evaluation activities and consent forms will be completed prior to the commencement of evaluation sessions. Participatory workshops. Separate workshops will be held at two time-points (4–8 months, and 9–12 months) within each community setting. Peer researchers and co-ordinators and co-production & community engagement research fellow will be invited to share their experiences of co-production activities. Ripple Effects Mapping (Nobles et al., 2022) will be used to understand the broader impacts of co-production activities, including identifying what worked (in leading to impact) and what did not. Participants will be directed to map activities and impacts on a timeline and reflect on what has been most (and least) significant and why. A participatory activity will be used to explore participants’ feelings about whether their experiences aligned with the guiding principles of co-production and to identify and discuss other factors that influenced their experience. Different coloured cards will represent positive, neutral or negative feelings and participants will place these cards at various points on a body outline depending on their view of the importance of the different principles in shaping their experience. Observations. Observation provides an independent record of events and behaviours in real-time, within the context in which they occur (Morgan-Trimmer, 2015). A researcher will observe three peer research data collection events within each case study (n = 12 events) to capture how the research is implemented in accordance with the guiding principles of the co-production strategy (Albert et al., 2023) across different contexts. A BiB researcher will also observe up to three training and support sessions delivered to the community organisations and peer researchers. Observations will be recorded through reflective notes related to the feasibility, acceptability and impact of co-producing research with diverse communities with community partners. These observation events will allow both researchers and peer researchers to reflect on their experiences. Observations will be documented through reflective notes focusing on the feasibility, acceptability and impact of co-producing research with diverse communities and community partners. The specific data collection events to be observed will be determined through consultation with peer researchers, based on the research methods agreed upon and adopted in WP1. Facilitated discussions. Community co-ordinators and co-production & community engagement research fellow will convene a facilitated discussion at three key points over the 12-month period (approximately 4, 8 and 12 months) to engage in collective discussions. These discussions, facilitated by the researcher, will focus on identifying the barriers and enablers that partner organisations encountered in delivering the research (WP1), exploring any additional opportunities that participation has provided, and reviewing and reflecting on the ongoing findings emerging from the evaluation activities. Participants will also consider whether feasibility, acceptability and mechanisms of impact vary across the different contexts and, if possible, will consider making changes to improve the research delivery described in WP1. Flexible and rapid qualitative analysis methods (Vindrola-Padros & Johnson, 2020) (Vindrola-Padros & Johnson, 2020) will be employed. Activities will be audio-recorded, and the data will be transcribed and coded following each data collection session, with researcher field notes providing additional context. Mind mapping techniques (Burgess-Allen & Owen-Smith, 2010) will be utilised during facilitated discussions to develop broad themes and actively involve participants in the analysis process. The data will be analysed thematically, focusing how well the activities in WP1 align with the nine guiding co-production principles, considering feasibility, acceptability, impact, and contextual influences. Additionally, there will be flexibility to incorporate new and unexpected themes into the analysis, particularly through the mind-mapping exercises and facilitated discussions with community partners. In this work package, we will co-produce the key features of a successful CoPPeR network model that provides the necessary infrastructure to enable seldom-heard communities to become central partners in all aspects of the research process. To achieve this, we will focus on two key questions: We will utilise the appreciative inquiry ‘dream’ and ‘design’ stages (Cram, 2010; Ludema et al., 2001) to collaborate with community organisations, peer researchers and stakeholders. This process will involve envisioning a positive future where community members and community organisations will work with researchers to draw out a vision for the CoPPeR network. This will be operationalised through a workshop held with community organisations, peer researchers and wider stakeholders to reflect on learnings from work packages 1 and 2. We will commence the workshop with a small series of presentations outlining what we did and what we found and some key learning points from the community co-ordinators and peer researchers. Attendees will take into consideration the points presented and engage in the ‘dream’ stage of the Appreciative Inquiry by discussing what a successful CoPPeR model might look like by focusing on ‘what works well’ and ‘what could be improved’. The proceeding discussion, which will be facilitated by a member of the research team, will be recorded on flip-chart paper. The workshop will then transition to the ‘design’ stage where attendees will outline the systems, processes and investments needed to make the CoPPeR network a reality. Outputs from these interactive workshops will be transferred from the flip-chart notes into word and excel documents where we can categorise the proceedings in order of priority. The research team will translate the content and findings into a mission statement and operational guide for the CoPPeR network. This will essentially serve as a blueprint for the CoPPeR network. In this work package, we will focus on sharing insights with key statutory health and research partners to establish a sustainable foundation for the CoPPeR network through a series of targeted development activities. Our co-production strategy (Albert et al., 2023) has already garnered strategic commitment from local policy and decision makers with adoption of the strategic principles by Bradford Council, the West Yorkshire Health and Care Partnership, and Bradford’s NIHR Health Research Determinants collaboration. Building on this commitment, we will engage with co-production leads from these organisations to explore how to operationalise and embed the CoPPeR model. This will involve assessing readiness, receptivity, barriers and facilitators at both tactical and operational levels. This approach aims to identify future actions to increase the absorptive capacity for co-production and demonstrate the value and utility of both the CoPPeR network and co-production methods to potential future funders. This study has been reviewed and approved by the Yorkshire and Humber Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee on 23 November 2023 (REC Reference 23/YH/0267). All research participants will provide written informed consent in accordance with our ethics protocol. We plan to produce a range of outputs from this study and disseminate them through various channels and formats. We will produce several peer-reviewed articles detailing our approach and insights gained. These publications are expected to attract interest from journals focusing on involvement and engagement. Equally, we also aim to contribute to the academic discourse on the evaluation of co-production approaches, addressing the current lack of literature in this area. The findings from the citizen science and co-production approaches will be published in journals that focus on the built and natural environment (BNE). As these journals increasingly focus on community inclusive approaches, our findings will contribute to discussions on applying rigorous and appropriate methods in the development of housing projects, parks, landscape design and other relevant areas. Local outputs from the research will include a report for each of the four hyper-local projects. These reports will be written in plain English and will be tailored for local decision-makers, including Councillors, Council Ward Officers, Wardens, Schools and the Police. The community co-ordinators will lead the production of these reports, with support from the research team and input from the peer researchers. Peer researchers will receive training and support to design and deliver presentations aimed at driving change. The community co-ordinators will collaborate with them to co-produce presentation materials. We will organise opportunities for discussion and presentation of the findings in community venues, such as Open Space events. We aim to share our research insights at events designed for both academic and community audiences. Our ambitious plans to establish co-production partnerships through the CoPPeR network will be supported by the evidence generated from this project. We aim to identify ‘what works for which communities and why’ as well as ‘what approaches may encounter limited acceptance or readiness’. These findings which will be generated through this research will be instrumental in shaping the development of the CoPPeR network, guiding its development based on the evaluation of the case studies and our experiences working with diverse communities. This approach will help us build capacity and foster commitment among the communities involved. The importance of participatory approaches is that they increase both legitimacy and the quality of decision-making. They achieve this by allowing the people and communities most affected to shape the mission’s success (Griffiths, 2024). Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences - Albert A, Islam S, Haklay M, et al.: Nothing about us without us: a co-production strategy for communities, researchers and stakeholders to identify ways of improving health and reducing inequalities. Health Expect. 2023; 26(2): 836–846. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Ball S, Harshfield A, Carpenter A, et al.: Patient and Public Involvement in research: enabling meaningful contributions. RAND Corporation, 2019. Publisher Full Text - Beresford P: Public participation in health and social care: exploring the co-production of knowledge. Front Sociol. 2019; 3: 41. Publisher Full Text - Binter AC, Bernard JY, Mon-Williams M, et al.: Urban environment and cognitive and motor function in children from four European birth cohorts. Environ Int. 2022; 158: 106933. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Boyle D, Coote A, Sherwood C, et al.: Right here, right now: taking co-production into the mainstream. NESTA, 2010. Reference Source - Brix J, Krogstrup HK, Mortensen NM: Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government. Local Gov Stud. 2020; 46(2): 169–185. Publisher Full Text - Burgess-Allen J, Owen-Smith V: Using mind mapping techniques for rapid qualitative data analysis in public participation processes. Health Expect. 2010; 13(4): 406–415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Cartwright C, Rahman A, Islam S, et al.: People powered research: what do communities identify as important for happy and healthy children and young people? A multi-disciplinary community research priority setting exercise in the City of Bradford, United Kingdom (UK). Int J Equity Health. 2023; 22(1): 71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council: Intelligence bulletin: a profile of Bradford District 2025. 2025. Reference Source - Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al.: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337: a1655. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Cram F: Appreciative inquiry. MAI Review. 2010; 3: 4. Reference Source - Cronin-de-Chavez A, Islam S, McEachan RRC: Not a level playing field: a qualitative study exploring structural, community and individual determinants of greenspace use amongst low-income multi-ethnic families. Health Place. 2019; 56: 118–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Cyril S, Smith BJ, Possamai-Inesedy A, et al.: Exploring the role of Community Engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2015; 8: 29842. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, et al.: Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13(1): 117. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Green G: Power to the people: to what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this? Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2: 28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Griffiths M: Can mission-driven leadership accelerate social change? The Young Foundation, 2024. Reference Source - Islam S, Albert A, Haklay M, et al.: Co-production in ActEarly: nothing about us without us. Bradford Institute for Health Research & University College London, 2022. Reference Source - Islam S, Small N: An annotated and critical glossary of the terminology of inclusion in healthcare and health research. Res Involv Engagem. 2020; 6: 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Kieslinger B, Mayer K, Schaefer T, et al.: White paper on co-evaluation of citizen social science. Zenodo. 2022. Publisher Full Text - Ludema JD, Cooperrider DL, Barrett FJ: Appreciative inquiry: the power of the unconditional positive question. In: P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.): Handbook of action research. Sage Publications, 2001; 189–199. Reference Source - Macintyre S: Evidence based policy making. BMJ. 2003; 326(7379): 5–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Macintyre S: Good intentions and received wisdom are not good enough: the need for controlled trials in public health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011; 65(7): 564–567. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, et al.: WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet. 2012; 380(9846): 1011–1029. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Marmot M, Bell R: Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. 2012; 126 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S4–S10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - McEachan RRC, Prady SL, Smith G, et al.: The association between green space and depressive symptoms in pregnant women: moderating roles of socioeconomic status and physical activity. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016; 70(3): 253–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - McEachan RRC, Yang TC, Roberts H, et al.: Availability, use of, and satisfaction with green space, and children’s mental wellbeing at age 4 years in a multicultural, deprived, urban area: results from the Born in Bradford cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018; 2(6): e244–e254. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Mebrahtu TF, Santorelli G, Yang TC, et al.: The effects of exposure to NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 on health service attendances with respiratory illnesses: a time-series analysis. Environ Pollut. 2023; 333: 122123. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Milton B, Attree P, French B, et al.: The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Dev J. 2012; 47(3): 316–334. Publisher Full Text - Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: English indices of deprivation 2019: research report. 2019. Reference Source - Morgan-Trimmer S: Improving process evaluations of health behavior interventions: learning from the social sciences. Eval Health Prof. 2015; 38(3): 295–314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Khreis H, et al.: Socioeconomic inequalities in urban and transport planning related exposures and mortality: a health impact assessment study for Bradford, UK. Environ Int. 2018; 121(Pt 1): 931–941. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Nobles J, Wheeler J, Dunleavy-Harris K, et al.: Ripple effects mapping: capturing the wider impacts of systems change efforts in public health. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1): 72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - O’Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, Oliver S, et al.: The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 129. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Ortegon-Sanchez A, McEachan RRC, Albert A, et al.: Measuring the built environment in studies of child health—a meta-narrative review of associations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(20): 10741. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Ortegon-Sanchez A, Vaughan L, Christie N, et al.: Shaping pathways to child health: a systematic review of street-scale interventions in city streets. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(9): 5227. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Pedersen M, Giorgis-Allemand L, Bernard C, et al.: Ambient air pollution and low birthweight: a European cohort study (ESCAPE). Lancet Respir Med. 2013; 1(9): 695–704. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Plumb N, Bell R: Building our social infrastructure: why levelling up means creating a more socially connected Britain. The Cares Family & Power to Change, 2021. Reference Source - Putnam RD: Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster, 2000. Reference Source - Rashid R, Chong F, Islam S, et al.: Taking a deep breath: a qualitative study exploring acceptability and perceived unintended consequences of charging clean air zones and air quality improvement initiatives amongst low-income, multi-ethnic communities in Bradford, UK. BMC Public Health. 2021; 21(1): 1305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: A.M Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researchers companion. SAGE Publications, Inc, 2002; 305–329. Publisher Full Text - Ryan D, Nutting H, Parekh C, et al.: Ready, set, co(produce): a co-operative inquiry into co-producing research to explore adolescent health and wellbeing in the Born in Bradford Age of Wonder project. Res Involv Engagem. 2024; 10(1): 41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Ucci M, Ortegon-Sanchez A, Mead NE, et al.: Exploring the interactions between housing and neighbourhood environments for enhanced child wellbeing: the lived experience of parents living in areas of high child poverty in England, UK. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(19): 12563. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Vindrola-Padros C, Johnson GA: Rapid techniques in qualitative research: a critical review of the literature. Qual Health Res. 2020; 30(10): 1596–1604. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Vrijheid M, Fossati S, Maitre L, et al.: Early-life environmental exposures and childhood obesity: an exposome-wide approach. Environ Health Perspect. 2020; 128(6): 067009. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Wang C, Burris MA: Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997; 24(3): 369–387. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Warembourg C, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Ballester F, et al.: Urban environment during early-life and blood pressure in young children. Environ Int. 2021; 146: 106174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text - Wright J, Hayward A, West J, et al.: ActEarly: a City Collaboratory approach to early promotion of good health and wellbeing [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2019; 4: 156. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text - Wright J, Small N, Raynor P, et al.: Cohort profile: the Born in Bradford multi-ethnic family cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42(4): 978–991. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Author details Author details 1 Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, England, UK 2 University of Bradford, Bradford, England, UK 3 Connected Roma C.I.C, Bradford, UK 4 Bradford Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK 5 Bradford Centre for Qualitative Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK 6 Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK 7 OutLOUD LTD, Bradford, UK 8 Abilities Together, Bradford, UK 2 University of Bradford, Bradford, England, UK 3 Connected Roma C.I.C, Bradford, UK 4 Bradford Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK 5 Bradford Centre for Qualitative Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK 6 Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK 7 OutLOUD LTD, Bradford, UK 8 Abilities Together, Bradford, UK Nazish Mahmood Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Rosemary R. C. McEachan Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Bridget Lockyer Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Chloe Parekh Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Chris Cartwright Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Daniel Balaz Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Gulsoom Akhtar Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Jennifer Hall Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Lauren Batty Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Tahira Amin Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Zille Huma Dogra Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Shahid Islam Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its [‘Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme’ (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-NIHR205188)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright © Crown copyright, 2025 Mahmood N et al.. This open access work is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations CITE how to cite this article Mahmood N, McEachan RRC, Lockyer B et al. Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13886.1) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 02 Apr 2025 Views 0 How to cite this report: Norton MJ. Reviewer Report For: Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15090.r35219) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35219 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35219 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 29 May 2025 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 Dear Authors Many thanks for submitting this protocol for review by myself. I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and I first of all would like to commend you for such an ambitious project that incorporates participatory ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close Many thanks for submitting this protocol for review by myself. I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and I first of all would like to commend you for such an ambitious project that incorporates participatory ... Continue reading Dear Authors Many thanks for submitting this protocol for review by myself. I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and I first of all would like to commend you for such an ambitious project that incorporates participatory co-design methodology. Please see attached minor amendments to improve readability of the paper. 1. I would review your abstract again as I was not sure upon reading it what kind of protocol it is. In fact, this is the biggest issue I had with this paper. Is it a study protocol or is it a co-design protocol? The more I read this paper, the more I sided with a study protocol but please make this explicitly clear for the reader both in the abstract and in-text. 2. In line with it being a protocol, you should not have a results or conclusion section in your abstract as you cannot report on these yet due to the study's infancy. Instead replace these headings and the text underneath them with Ethics and Dissemination and discuss these as the final section of the abstract. 3. If the key words are of equal value, please place in alphabetical order. 4. Please refrain from using e.g, i.e, or etc in academic writing. 5. In your methods, please make sure that all work packages descriptions are of equal length and detail so that the study can be replicated and also to demonstrate that each work package are of equal importance. This is particularly relevant for work packages 3 and 4 which has little detail attached to them. 6. In your methodology you are using a participatory approach, it would be of interest to note the theoretical orientation [ontology and epistemology] behind the project to ensure theoretical alignment of the philosophical positions to the methodology and finally the methods employed. Once again, many thanks for submitting this protocol for review and I look forward to reading the resubmission. Many thanks for submitting this protocol for review by myself. I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and I first of all would like to commend you for such an ambitious project that incorporates participatory co-design methodology. Please see attached minor amendments to improve readability of the paper. 1. I would review your abstract again as I was not sure upon reading it what kind of protocol it is. In fact, this is the biggest issue I had with this paper. Is it a study protocol or is it a co-design protocol? The more I read this paper, the more I sided with a study protocol but please make this explicitly clear for the reader both in the abstract and in-text. 2. In line with it being a protocol, you should not have a results or conclusion section in your abstract as you cannot report on these yet due to the study's infancy. Instead replace these headings and the text underneath them with Ethics and Dissemination and discuss these as the final section of the abstract. 3. If the key words are of equal value, please place in alphabetical order. 4. Please refrain from using e.g, i.e, or etc in academic writing. 5. In your methods, please make sure that all work packages descriptions are of equal length and detail so that the study can be replicated and also to demonstrate that each work package are of equal importance. This is particularly relevant for work packages 3 and 4 which has little detail attached to them. 6. In your methodology you are using a participatory approach, it would be of interest to note the theoretical orientation [ontology and epistemology] behind the project to ensure theoretical alignment of the philosophical positions to the methodology and finally the methods employed. Once again, many thanks for submitting this protocol for review and I look forward to reading the resubmission. - Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes - Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes - Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly - Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Co-Production, Peer Support Work, Recovery, Mental Health, Qualitative Research, Evidence-Based Practice CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Norton MJ. Reviewer Report For: Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15090.r35219) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35219 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35219 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Branitsky A. Reviewer Report For: Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15090.r35218) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35218 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35218 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 08 May 2025 Approved VIEWS 0 This protocol provides a thorough account of a co-production and peer research approach which aims to address health inequalities in seldom-heard communities through four co-produced workstreams. The protocol provides an excellent example of values-based co-production that moves far beyond rubber ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close This protocol provides a thorough account of a co-production and peer research approach which aims to address health inequalities in seldom-heard communities through four co-produced workstreams. The protocol provides an excellent example of values-based co-production that moves far beyond rubber stamp collaboration and outlines a process for building enduring relationships with seldom-heard communities whilst providing members of these communities with adequate training and resources to become full research partners. The rationale for this research is clearly outlined, and is applicable to communities beyond Bradford. The sampling, recruitment, training, data collection/analysis and dissemination strategy for each work package is clearly defined and the creative and collaborative methods ensure contextual/cultural appropriateness. Overall, the methods are clearly replicable. The one area which may enhance replicability would be to include if there was any previous relationship between the central research team and the communities/target populations included. It would be insightful to know how these communities were approached and if there were any concerns regarding power or trust that needed to be collaboratively resolved. As a minor point, "BiB researcher" is introduced in the first instance in work package 1 in the "walk along interviews" subsection, but is not defined until the "developing interview and survey tools" subsection. It would be helpful to have this defined in the first instance. Additionally, there are several instances (e.g., work package 2, "observations" section) in which a task is delegated to a "researcher" and then later on a "BiB researcher." It would be helpful to clarify if the "researcher" in the first instance was indeed the same BiB researcher. Overall, the authors are to be commended on such a thorough and methodologically rigorous protocol which centres the values of co-production and peer research throughout. As a minor point, "BiB researcher" is introduced in the first instance in work package 1 in the "walk along interviews" subsection, but is not defined until the "developing interview and survey tools" subsection. It would be helpful to have this defined in the first instance. Additionally, there are several instances (e.g., work package 2, "observations" section) in which a task is delegated to a "researcher" and then later on a "BiB researcher." It would be helpful to clarify if the "researcher" in the first instance was indeed the same BiB researcher. Overall, the authors are to be commended on such a thorough and methodologically rigorous protocol which centres the values of co-production and peer research throughout. - Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes - Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes - Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes - Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Patient and public involvement; co-production; clinical trial design; psychosis; trauma; voice hearing CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Branitsky A. Reviewer Report For: Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15090.r35218) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35218 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35218 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Views 0 How to cite this report: Eberhardt J. Reviewer Report For: Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15090.r35140) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35140 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35140 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 07 May 2025 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 This is a well-designed and clearly written protocol that outlines a thoughtful and timely piece of work. The project is grounded in the principles of co-production and peer research, and these are embedded throughout the design. The focus on communities ... Continue reading I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close This is a well-designed and clearly written protocol that outlines a thoughtful and timely piece of work. The project is grounded in the principles of co-production and peer research, and these are embedded throughout the design. The focus on communities that are often underrepresented in research, and the intention to build lasting research capacity through local partnerships, are both welcome and well justified. The rationale is clearly set out. The authors make a convincing case for the value of inclusive, community-led approaches to health research, and the objectives follow logically from this. The study design is well matched to the aims. The combination of peer research and citizen science methods across four community-led case study sites allows for necessary flexibility, while maintaining coherence across the project as a whole. The attention to real-time evaluation and reflection is a particular strength. The methods are described in detail. Recruitment, training, data collection, and co-analysis are all carefully planned, and the flexibility built into the approach is likely to support effective engagement with diverse groups. I particularly appreciated the consideration given to digital exclusion and accessibility. These details reflect the project’s commitment to inclusion. Although many challenges are thoughtfully anticipated, there are two areas where some additional clarification might strengthen the protocol. First, although the involvement of trusted community organisations is central to the recruitment strategy, it would be helpful to say a little more about how the project plans to address any difficulties in reaching or sustaining engagement with seldom-heard populations, should they arise. Although flexibility is rightly emphasised, a brief mention of any contingency strategies would be reassuring. Second, while variation between sites is appropriate and expected, a short explanation of how learning will be synthesised across the different case studies would add to the protocol. Some indication of minimum documentation standards or reflective practices across sites would support the broader aim of building a scalable and transferable model. The plain language summary is an important feature, but it is currently quite dense and written in a style that is closer to an academic abstract than a genuinely accessible summary. Given the emphasis on inclusivity and community engagement, it would be recommended to revise the plain language summary to ensure that it is straightforward, easy to follow, and accessible to a wide range of readers. The CoPPeR network model is clearly a key legacy aim of the project. It would strengthen the protocol to add a little more detail about what plans are in place to sustain the network beyond the funded period, whether through institutional support, new partnerships, or other means. These suggestions are intended to further strengthen what is already a very carefully considered and well-articulated project. The rationale is clearly set out. The authors make a convincing case for the value of inclusive, community-led approaches to health research, and the objectives follow logically from this. The study design is well matched to the aims. The combination of peer research and citizen science methods across four community-led case study sites allows for necessary flexibility, while maintaining coherence across the project as a whole. The attention to real-time evaluation and reflection is a particular strength. The methods are described in detail. Recruitment, training, data collection, and co-analysis are all carefully planned, and the flexibility built into the approach is likely to support effective engagement with diverse groups. I particularly appreciated the consideration given to digital exclusion and accessibility. These details reflect the project’s commitment to inclusion. Although many challenges are thoughtfully anticipated, there are two areas where some additional clarification might strengthen the protocol. First, although the involvement of trusted community organisations is central to the recruitment strategy, it would be helpful to say a little more about how the project plans to address any difficulties in reaching or sustaining engagement with seldom-heard populations, should they arise. Although flexibility is rightly emphasised, a brief mention of any contingency strategies would be reassuring. Second, while variation between sites is appropriate and expected, a short explanation of how learning will be synthesised across the different case studies would add to the protocol. Some indication of minimum documentation standards or reflective practices across sites would support the broader aim of building a scalable and transferable model. The plain language summary is an important feature, but it is currently quite dense and written in a style that is closer to an academic abstract than a genuinely accessible summary. Given the emphasis on inclusivity and community engagement, it would be recommended to revise the plain language summary to ensure that it is straightforward, easy to follow, and accessible to a wide range of readers. The CoPPeR network model is clearly a key legacy aim of the project. It would strengthen the protocol to add a little more detail about what plans are in place to sustain the network beyond the funded period, whether through institutional support, new partnerships, or other means. These suggestions are intended to further strengthen what is already a very carefully considered and well-articulated project. - Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes - Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes - Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes - Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Health inequalities; ethnic minority health; preventative health behaviours; intervention development and evaluation; participatory research methods CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Eberhardt J. Reviewer Report For: Protocol: Applying co-production and peer research approaches with community organisations to develop a blueprint for the centre for Co-Production and Peer Research (CoPPeR) network. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. NIHR Open Res 2025, 5:27 (https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.15090.r35140) The direct URL for this report is: https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35140 https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-27/v1#referee-response-35140 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | Invited Reviewers | ||| |---|---|---|---| | 1 | 2 | 3 | | | Version 1 02 Apr 25 | read | read | read | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with NIHR Open Research Already registered? Sign in close Error If you are a previous or current NIHR award holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from NIHR Open Research. We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to NIHR Open Research Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait...