ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020
Learning from patient involvement in a clinical study analyzing PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Breast Cancer Recurrence - the Accuracy of Dual-time PET/CT
Molecular Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer - A Clinical Study of Accuracy and Response Assessment
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Why involvement remains fragile: a qualitative comparison of principal investigators' and patient organisations' perspectives in Italy.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Article
- Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
- Review
- How can we recruit more men of African or African-Caribbean ancestry into our research? Co-creating a video to raise awareness of prostate cancer risk and the PROFILE study.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- "Could you give us an idea on what we are all doing here?" the Patient Voice in Cancer Research (PVCR) starting the journey of involvement in Ireland.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Involving research participants in a pan-European research initiative: the EPAD participant panel experience.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Low degree of patient involvement in contemporary surgical research: A scoping review.Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite increasing interest in patient involvement in health care research, researchers may be uncertain about the benefits of involving patients in the design and conduction of clinical studies. We aimed to evaluate the impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment and retention in a clinical study of PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer. Further, we report our experience regarding the researchers' attitudes towards involving patients as partners in the research process.
methodsTwo patient representatives from the Danish Breast Cancer Organization were invited as partners in the research team. These patient partners were asked to contribute in particular to participator information material and evaluation of ethical aspects of the study. The impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment was evaluated by comparing expected versus actual number of patients recruited, and then relating it to patient recruitment in a similar study at the same institution that did not involve patients as research partners.
resultsHaving patients as partners in the research team led to a major revision of the participator information material and improved patient recruitment. The expected number of patients was 260, but 380 were actually enrolled within the planned study period, thus 146% of the expected patient recruitment. In the previous study, only 100 of the expected 150 patients were enrolled during a 10-month extended study period, i.e. 67% of the expected number. Patient retention in the current study was high, with 86% of eligible patients attending follow-up scans. We observed initial resistance amongst researchers against inviting patients as team partners. This resistance gradually lessened during the study, and the most reluctant researchers at the beginning of the study later applauded the collaboration and the ideas generated by the patient representatives.
conclusionInvolving patients as partners in the research team resulted in major changes to the participator information material and contributed to higher than expected patient recruitment and retention. Furthermore, we observed a positive change of attitude amongst the researchers towards patient involvement in the research process.
trial registrationOngoing study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03358589).Previous study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01552655).
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.