Abstract / Summary
Background: Youth Advisory Boards and Community Advisory Boards are widely used to promote public involvement in research involving adolescents and young adults. These structures can improve the relevance, acceptability, and ethical grounding of research; however, advisory models often remain constrained by structural limitations, including inconsistent or inadequate compensation models, limited decision-making authority, grant-dependent instability, and late-stage engagement. These constraints may unintentionally position youth as episodic consultants rather than sustained research partners.
Main body: This commentary describes the development of the Subject Matter Research Consultant (SMRC) model at the Institute on Digital Health and Innovation (IDHI), a formalized youth-engagement structure designed to move beyond traditional advisory-board participation. Emerging from earlier youth advisory and research consultant efforts, and formalized following IDHI's establishment in 2022, the SMRC model positions youth as part-time employees embedded across the research lifecycle. Core components of the model include paid employment, structured training and mentorship, centralized coordination, and meaningful involvement in research activities from study design through dissemination. Early implementation feedback suggests that SMRCs perceive the role as beneficial to their academic and professional development, with reported benefits including increased research skills, expanded professional networks, greater confidence contributing to research teams, and increased interest in health-related careers.
Conclusion: The SMRC model illustrates how institutional investment in youth engagement can transform youth participation from episodic consultation into compensated, capacity-building research partnership. By formalizing youth roles through employment and sustained integration across projects, this model offers a practical framework for strengthening youth-engaged research systems. Continued evaluation is needed to assess scalability, funding sustainability, retention, and the model's impact on research quality, community trust, and health outcomes.