Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30123530›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2018

Patient involvement in the development of a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention: evaluation of a shared working group with patients and researchers.

Eva Rames Nissen, Vibeke Bregnballe, Mimi Yung Mehlsen, Anne Kathrine Østerby Muldbjerg, Maja O'Connor, Kirsten Elisabeth Lomborg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Navigating Long-Term Co-Creative Research With Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eva Rames Nissen1Unit for Psychooncology and Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 11, Bld. 1350, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9773-6772
Vibeke BregnballeResearch Programme for Patient Involvement, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, Bld. 12A, 1, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Mimi Yung Mehlsen1Unit for Psychooncology and Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 11, Bld. 1350, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Anne Kathrine Østerby Muldbjerg1Unit for Psychooncology and Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 11, Bld. 1350, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Maja O'Connor1Unit for Psychooncology and Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 11, Bld. 1350, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Kirsten Elisabeth Lomborg3Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Incuba/Skejby, Bld. 2, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 82, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryThe aim of this paper is to present our experiences from a shared working group (SWG) with patient representatives and researchers. The SWG collaborated on developing a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention for women treated for breast cancer and men treated for prostate cancer and on the planning of an effect study of this intervention.The SWG included five patient representatives (three women treated for breast cancer and two men treated for prostate cancer), four researchers and a research assistant. The SWG met four times during the year where the intervention was developed. Data material for the present evaluation study comprises meeting documents, transcriptions of interviews with two patient representatives and three researchers from the SWG, and the primary investigator's field notes.The collaboration between patient representatives and researchers informed both the intervention and the research planning and was rewarding for the involved participants. The well-structured organization of the collaboration had a positive impact on the outcome. In addition, clear goals and clarification of expectations were important. Challenges were encountered in keeping continuity between meetings and carrying out homework as intended. It was crucial for the collaboration that patient representatives had specific knowledge, interest and motivation for the project.Involving patient representatives in the research process heightened the relevancy of the research and the quality of its contents. The SWG gave patient representatives and researchers a better mutual understanding. Overall, the conclusion is that the benefits obtained by involving patient representatives exceeds the additional costs this involves. ABSTRACT:

Indexed as

Cancer rehabilitationCancer survivorshipInternet-delivered interventionsPatient and public involvement in researchPPI

Identifiers

PMID30123530
PMCPMC6091160
OpenAlexW2884032115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.