ReviewCancer research2018
Promoting Scientist-Advocate Collaborations in Cancer Research: Why and How.
Review in Cancer research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Axiology and dynamics of contemporary research groups: a systematic review and hermeneutic meta-analysis of knowledge, values, and social elements.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- Engaging Patient Advocates to Reduce Breast Cancer Disparities: Opportunities to Advance Breast Cancer Research and Engagement.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Patient Advocate-Trainee Engagement in Oncology Education: Insights from a Short Pilot Survey.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- A human-centered, participatory design approach to cancer research training.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Social media for healthcare professionals in oncology: results from a cross-sectional survey conducted across eight countries in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Genetic Services in a South African Setting: Proband Testing, Cascading and Clinical Management.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Towards democratised psychiatry: building metacommunities for inclusive and equitable global mental health.BJPsych international · 2025Review
- A Stronger IMPACT on Career Development for Early- and Mid-career Faculty.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2024Article
- BIPOC experiences of (anti-)racist patient engagement in adolescent and young adult oncology research: an electronic Delphi study.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Patient organisations' views, motivations and experiences on patient involvement in cancer research: a pilot study in Portugal.BMJ open · 2024Review
- A community engagement training program for basic and translational cancer researchers.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Engaging community members in cancer research: an assessment of an NCI-designated cancer center.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Interprofessional Near-Peer Mentoring Teams Enhance Cancer Research Training: Sustainable Approaches for Biomedical Workforce Development of Historically Underrepresented Students.Journal of STEM outreach · 2022Article
- Utilization of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform to Evaluate the Psychosocial and Quality-of-Life Experience Among a Community Sample of Ovarian Cancer Survivors.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2022Article
- Knight Scholars Program: A Tiered Three-Year Mentored Training Program for Urban and Rural High School High School Students Increases Interest and Self-Efficacy in Interprofessional Cancer Research.Journal of STEM outreach · 2022Article
- Improving the odds together: a framework for breast cancer research scientists to include patient advocates in their research.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Review
- Article
- NCI's publication affiliation conundrum: Reframing innovation to incentivize an equitable path for advocate representation.Translational oncology · 2022Article
- Patient Advocacy in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Decoding the multidimensional signatures of resident and expanded natural killer cells generated from perinatal blood.American journal of cancer research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advocates bring unique and important viewpoints to the cancer research process, ensuring that scientific and medical advances are patient-centered and relevant. In this article, we discuss the benefits of engaging advocates in cancer research and underscore ways in which both the scientific and patient communities can facilitate this mutually beneficial collaboration. We discuss how to establish and nurture successful scientist-advocate relationships throughout the research process. We review opportunities that are available to advocates who want to obtain training in the evaluation of cancer research. We also suggest practical solutions that can strengthen communication between scientists and advocates, such as introducing scientist-advocate interactions at the trainee level. Finally, we highlight the essential role social media can play in disseminating patient-supported cancer research findings to the patient community and in raising awareness of the importance of promoting cancer research. Our perspective offers a model that Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates have found effective and which could be one option for those interested in developing productive, successful, and sustainable collaborations between advocates and scientists in cancer research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.