Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383382›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022

Setting international standards for patient and parent involvement and engagement in childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer research: A report from a European Collaborative Workshop.

Angela Polanco, Reem Al-Saadi, Suzanne Tugnait, Nicole Scobie, Kathy Pritchard-Jones

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Patient-led research and Advocacy Efforts.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  17. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Angela PolancoBethany's Wish/National Cancer Research Institute (Consumer member), London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4619-0773
Reem Al-SaadiUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Suzanne TugnaitUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nicole ScobieChildhood Cancer International Europe, Zoe4life, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kathy Pritchard-JonesUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBBirdLife International · KEGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Cancer Research Institute · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research, advocates for research conducted 'with' not 'for' the affected population. In paediatric oncology research, the parents of children, adolescents and young adults affected by cancer are represented by the term 'public' in the acronym PPIE. Patients (those with cancer and cancer survivors) are also passionate advocates who drive forward the research priorities of children, adolescents and young adults throughout the entire research process.

aimsA workshop was held at an international professional meeting in 2019 with the aim to define Patient and Parent Involvement and Engagement (PPIE); capture PPIE activities on a European level; and to explore the role of PPIE in non-interventional research. A proposed framework for a European PPIE strategy for childhood, adolescent and young adult cancers was also discussed.

methodsThe 60-minute workshop was attended by health care professionals, researchers, scientists, parents, survivors and charity/support organisations. A presentation to define PPIE, including the difference in terminology for PPIE in the context of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancers was discussed. Best practice examples from the United Kingdom (UK) helped to demonstrate the positive impact of PPIE in paediatric oncology research. Three breakout groups then explored themes relating to PPIE, namely PPIE priorities, PPIE mapping for Europe, and PPIE in non-interventional research and data-linkage.

resultsDisparity in PPIE activities across Europe was evident, with ambiguity surrounding terminology and expected roles for PPIE representatives in paediatric oncology research. A lack of PPIE activity in Eastern Europe correlated with a lack of availability for clinical trials and poorer survival rates for paediatric oncology patients. There was unanimous support for PPIE embedded research in all areas, including in non-interventional studies.

conclusionA European-level definition of PPIE for paediatric oncology research is needed. Further exploration into the role and responsibilities of patients, parents, and professionals when undertaking PPIE related activities is also recommended. Best practice examples from the UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium demonstrated a preliminary evidence base from which a European PPIE strategy framework can be designed, inclusive of the patient and parent voice.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsAdolescentChildHumansParentsPatient ParticipationResearchYoung Adultchildhood cancerEuropepaediatric oncologyparentspatient and public involvement and engagementstrategy

Identifiers

PMID34383382
PMCPMC9199507
OpenAlexW3187082865

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.