Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32368351›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

Setting the research agenda for living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: reflections on a research prioritisation exercise.

D Cavers, S Cunningham-Burley, E Watson, E Banks, C Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. International research priority setting exercises in stroke: A systematic review.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Living With and Beyond Cancer With Comorbid Conditions: Qualitative Insights to Understand Psychosocial Support Needs.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

D Cavers1Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Rm 123, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK.
S Cunningham-Burley1Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Rm 123, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK.
E Watson2Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Jack Straws Lane, Marston, Oxford, OX3 0FL UK.
E Banks3c/o NCRI, 2 Redman Place, Stratford, London, E20 1JQ UK.
C Campbell1Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Rm 123, Doorway 1, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople living with and beyond cancer are more likely to have comorbid conditions and poorer mental and physical health, but there is a dearth of in-depth research exploring the psychosocial needs of people experiencing cancer and comorbid chronic conditions. A patient partnership approach to research prioritisation and planning can ensure outcomes meaningful to those affected and can inform policy and practice accordingly, but can be challenging.

methodsWe aimed to inform priorities for qualitative inquiry into the experiences and support needs of people living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness using a partnership approach. A three-step process including a patient workshop to develop a consultation document, online consultation with patients, and academic expert consultation was carried out. The research prioritisation process was also appraised and reflected upon.

resultsSix people attended the workshop, ten responded online and eight academic experts commented on the consultation document. Five key priorities were identified for exploration in subsequent qualitative studies, including the diagnostic journey, the burden of symptoms, managing medications, addressing the needs of informal carers, and service provision. Limitations of patient involvement and reflections on procedural ethics, and the challenge of making measurable differences to patient outcomes were discussed.

conclusionsFindings from this research prioritisation exercise will inform planned qualitative work to explore patients' experiences of living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness. Including patient partners in the research prioritisation process adds focus and relevance, and feeds into future work and recommendations to improve health and social care for this group of patients. Reflections on the consultation process contribute to a broadening of understanding the field of patient involvement.

Indexed as

Comorbid illnessLiving with and beyond cancerMulti-morbidityPatient and public involvementQualitativeResearch prioritisation

Identifiers

PMID32368351
PMCPMC7191759

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.