Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24214497›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2014

Supporting cancer survivors' participation in peer review: perspectives from NCI's CARRA program.

Melissa B Gilkey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  3. Adult Cancer Survivors' Engagement and Interest in Patient-Centered Research.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Melissa B GilkeyUniversity of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, CB 7440, Rosenau Hall, 3rd Floor, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7440, USA, gilkey@email.unc.edu.

Funding

LINEBERGER CANCER CONTROL EDUCATION PROGRAMR25CA057726 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI EARP, JO ANNE L, RIBISL, KURT M. · 1992 to 2016
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057726NCI NIH HHS R25 CA57726
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIncluding cancer survivors in the peer review of cancer-related research is increasingly valued as a strategy for bringing the "patient perspective" to discussions of research merit and human subject protection. Because integrating lay stakeholders into peer review poses challenges, this qualitative study explored the perspectives of experienced patient advocates to identify programmatic supports for survivors' participation.

methodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 19 cancer survivors and 6 administrators involved in the National Cancer Institute's Consumer Advocates in Research and Related Activities program. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed via thematic content analysis. Participants were highly educated and included survivors of breast, prostate, and blood-related cancers.

resultsInterviewees emphasized the importance of adequately preparing survivors to serve as advocates. Given the intellectual challenge of peer review, interviewees noted the need for intensive and ongoing training on how to review proposals, and they identified mock reviews and peer mentoring as effective strategies to complement didactic instruction. Participants also stressed the need to address social challenges inherent in advocate-scientist encounters. In addition to training for both advocates and scientists, participants reported that opportunities for informal social interaction were important for facilitating collaboration. Finally, participants recommended structuring advocates' role so as to give them a voice via equal voting privileges and protected opportunities to speak.

conclusionsPrograms that seek to include cancer survivors in peer review can prepare advocates for the intellectual and social challenges of working with scientists through careful attention to training, networking, and programmatic design. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors have been leaders in developing a role for patient advocates in the peer review of research. As the concept of patient-centered outcomes continues to gain currency, lessons learned from early programs for patient inclusion in peer review can help to inform future efforts aimed at giving patients a voice in shaping agendas for health-related research.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPeer ReviewEducational StatusEthnicityFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMentorsNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsPatient AdvocacyQualitative ResearchResearchSurvivorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24214497
PMCPMC3945408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.