1. The IBISES model paper

Fryer K, Reynolds J, Huang Q, Mawson R, Linton E, Aminu H, White J, Cory R, Mitchell C, and community partners (2025). Development of a community research link worker role to enable culturally tailored research and empower marginalised communities to participate: the IBISES model. Research Involvement and Engagement 11:122. doi:10.1186/s40900-025-00793-1

What was read: the full open-access article, including all four case studies, the model description and the discussion.

Supports: the definition of the role, the five aims, the naming rationale, the IBISES six steps, the half-day training description, the two-link-worker arrangement, supervision and dual-role practice, payment in cash and lump sums to partner organisations, the four operational requirements, and the case-study outcomes.

Strength: single study, across four projects in one region. Participatory action research, with community partners as authors.

Limits: South Yorkshire only. Small numbers. Training described, not evaluated. Community effect assessed largely through partner organisations.

2. The contraception study paper

Linton E, Mawson RL, Cory RJ, Ma R, Fryer K, Aminu H, and colleagues (2025). Understanding women from ethnic minorities' perspectives about contraception in the UK: a qualitative study using a participatory action research approach with community research link workers. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health 51(3):191-198. doi:10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202522. Free full text: White Rose Research Online. PubMed: 39933907.

What was read: the published version in full, from the White Rose repository, on 13 November 2026, including the methods, the description of the link workers, the results and the discussion.

Supports: three link workers recruited through community networks in the Deep End Research Alliance in Sheffield, one each from South Asian, Black African and Black Caribbean communities. It supports the minimum training content named in a live study, described as basic research skills training covering research ethics, focus group facilitation and analysis. It supports payment for link worker time. It supports recruitment by people from the same community, using several routes at once, in person, by telephone, by email and by WhatsApp, explicitly to reduce digital exclusion.

Strength: single study, qualitative, one city, published 2025. It is the worked example behind the IBISES model, so the two share authorship and setting.

Limits: it reports the study, not an evaluation of the training. Training content is named in one sentence, without hours, assessment or supervision detail.

3. The observational training study

NIHR School for Primary Care Research and Three Schools Prevention Programme. "It started with a hug: reflections from an observational training study of the community research link worker model." Programme blog post.

What was read: the full blog post, including the quotations from link worker interviews.

Supports: the "feeling out of place" and "feeling included" findings, the funeral account, the four motives, the payment refusal discussion, the feedback gap, the cascading training idea, and the call for a named community engagement coordinator.

Strength: practice report from a focused ethnography. Rich on mechanism, silent on prevalence.

4. The Deep End Research Alliance training page

Deep End Research Alliance, University of Sheffield. "Community Research Link Worker." DERA training page.

What was read: the full page.

Supports: that DERA designed adaptable CRLW training materials, that 20 people were trained across five projects, and the community composition: African Caribbean, Black African, South Asian, Chinese and Roma.

Strength: institutional statement. The training materials themselves are held as embedded files and are not openly published, which is the gap this course fills.

5. UK Standards for Public Involvement

UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research. Home and the six standards. An Easy Read booklet and a summary poster are published on the same page.

What was read: the standards index page in full on 13 November 2026, including the title and description of all six standards, and the "setting the scene" page, which records that forty organisations and people piloted the standards between May 2018 and May 2019. The individual standard sub-pages, which carry the reflective questions, were not read in full.

Supports: the framing of the course around support and learning, governance and inclusive opportunity, and the test used in the criteria for whether involvement is real. The Easy Read version is the model for how the short edition presents its pages.

Strength: established. The UK reference standard, piloted across forty organisations and people over twelve months.

6. NIHR payment guidance and rates

NIHR. Payment guidance for researchers and professionals and the Public Contributor Reward and Recognition Policy.

What was read: both documents in full on 13 November 2026, including the rate table, the daily committee tiers, the remote meeting allowance, the tax and benefits section and the review statement.

Supports: every rate quoted on the pay page: GBP 13.80, GBP 27.50, GBP 55, GBP 82.50, GBP 165 and GBP 330 for involvement tasks and meetings. It supports the daily committee ladder of GBP 165, GBP 247.50, GBP 330, GBP 400 and GBP 495. It supports the GBP 5 per remote meeting allowance for telephone, printing and postage. It supports the separation of participation costs from involvement costs, and the instruction that contributors approach the benefits advice service directly rather than through a researcher.

Strength: established, current at the date read. The document states that the payment rates were updated in December 2025, that the guidance has not otherwise been comprehensively reviewed, and that the tax and benefits guidance will be reviewed and updated in spring 2026. Check the rates before quoting them to a funder.

7. NIHR Public Contributor Roles Framework

NIHR (January 2025, V1.0). Public Contributor Roles Framework.

What was read: the framework in full on 13 November 2026, including the background, terminology, purpose, audience, how to use it, and the role list.

Supports: that public roles in NIHR activity are catalogued in one place, and the language of roles rather than a single contributor category. The role list includes proposal reviewer, document reviewer, project working group member, public committee member for prioritisation and for funding and selection, research champion, award panel member, workshop facilitator, and mentoring or reciprocal mentoring. None of these is a link worker, which is the gap this course fills.

Strength: established policy document, version 1.0.

8. NIHR definitions of involvement, engagement and participation

NIHR. Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, health and social care research.

What was read: the definitions as quoted and applied in the payment guidance. The briefing notes page itself was not read in full for this course.

Supports: the three-term distinction on the research essentials page, and the budgeting split between involvement and participation costs.

Strength: established. Treat the definitions as reliable and this course's citation as second-hand.

9. The Level 2 Award in Peer Research

The Young Foundation, Peer Research Network. Level 2 Award in Peer Research, an NCFE customised qualification, as described in NIHR ARC North East and North Cumbria accreditation briefing slides (2023). Background on peer research in the UK: The Young Foundation.

What was read: the briefing slides in full, including the statement of NCFE recognition, the unregulated status, the Level 2 benchmarking and the certificate of achievement. The award was not confirmed with NCFE or with The Young Foundation directly.

Supports: the accredited route described on the assessment page, and the honest statement that this course is not itself a regulated qualification.

Strength: established for the qualification's status as described in 2023. The briefing is a third-party summary of a 2023 position, so check directly with the provider before a team relies on it.

10. Training guide for community researchers

Woolrych R, Marinov A, Sixsmith J, Hyde A, Torak P, Morteanu C, Greenfields M, Cisneros R, Smolinska-Poffley G, Puska L, Balog M (2025). Training Guide for Community Researchers: The Case of the RomaPlaceAge Project. Heriot-Watt University. Full PDF.

What was read: the guide in full, including the day plan, the activities and the consent and information materials.

Supports: the session shape used on this course: a taught day moving from what research is, to why it matters, to practice with the information sheet and consent form.

Strength: practice report from one project, published as a guide rather than evaluated.

11. McPin Foundation training

The McPin Foundation. Peer research, public involvement and co-production training, including bespoke courses and mentoring.

What was read: the training pages, in full.

Supports: the claim that a paid training market exists for peer research, and that mentoring and reflective practice are offered alongside taught sessions.

Strength: practice report. Commercial provider; not evaluated here.

12. Mental Capacity Act 2005; UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018

Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Data Protection Act 2018. Guidance: ICO guide to the UK GDPR.

What was read: no primary legal text was read for this course. The pages state the principles as they apply in practice and require the study's own procedures to be followed. The links are given so a reader can check the law itself.

Strength: established law, but the course is not legal advice. Where the study's documentation and this page differ, the study's documentation and its information governance lead govern.