Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35157722›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Applying citizen science to engage families affected by ovarian cancer in developing genetic service outreach strategies.

Colleen M McBride, Gavin P Campbell, Jingsong Zhao, Rebecca D Pentz, Cam Escoffery, Michael Komonos, Kelly Cannova, Janice L B Byrne, Nancy M Paris, James R Shepperd and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Testing a Population-Based Outreach Intervention for Ovarian Cancer Survivors to Encourage their Close Relatives to Consider Genetic Counseling.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Colleen M McBrideDepartment of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7854-4372
Gavin P CampbellDepartment of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Jingsong ZhaoDepartment of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Rebecca D PentzDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Cam EscofferyDepartment of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Michael KomonosEmory School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Kelly CannovaThe OVERRUN Ovarian Cancer Foundation, Overland Park, KS, United States of America.
Janice L B ByrneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America.
Nancy M ParisGeorgia Center for Oncology Research & Education, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
James R ShepperdDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Yue GuanDepartment of Behavioral, Social and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Emory University · USOvarian Cancer Research Alliance · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Winship Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA138292 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Suresh S Ramalingam · 2009 to 2026
$47.5M
Testing a Low Cost Population- and Theory-Based Outreach Intervention to Engage Ovarian Cancer Survivors and their Close Relatives to Consider Genetic ServicesU01CA240581 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI GUAN, YUE · 2020 to 2023
$2.6M
Evaluating Deliberative Democracy Approaches with Citizens of African Ancestry Regarding Population Screening for Hereditary Cancer SyndromesR21CA238356 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI MC BRIDE, COLLEEN M · 2020 to 2021
$402k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138292NCI NIH HHS R21 CA238356NCI NIH HHS U01 CA240581
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science (CS) approaches involving non-professional researchers (citizens) as research collaborators has been used infrequently in health promotion generally and specifically, in cancer prevention. Standardized CS approaches may be especially useful for developing communication interventions to encourage families to consider cancer genetic services. We engaged survivors of ovarian cancer and their close relatives as CS collaborators to collect and help interpret data to inform content for a website, printed invitation materials, and short-message reminders. We applied an implementation quality framework, and posed four research questions regarding the feasibility of CS: recruitment, data collection, data quality and evaluation of the experience. CS members were recruited through three networks: clinical sites, local and national cancer support organizations, and online ovarian cancer patient support groups. The professional research team operationalized theory-aligned CS tasks, five data collection options, question banks/scripts for creating surveys, structured interviews, online training and ongoing support from research coaches. 14 CS members agreed to the 12-week and 20-hour commitment for an honorarium. CS members opted to do both qualitative and quantitative assessments. CS members collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews. The largest number of surveys were collected for Task 1 (n = 102) to assess survivors' reactions to different possible options for motivating survivors to visit a study website; 77% of this data were complete (i.e., no missing values). Data collected for tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 (e.g., assessment of survivors' and relatives' respective communication preferences) ranged from 10 to 58 surveys (80% to 84% completeness). All data were collected within the specified time frame. CSs reported 17 hours of work on average and regarded the experience positively. Our experience suggests that CS engagement is feasible, can yield comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data, and is achievable in a relatively a short timeline.

Indexed as

Genetic ServicesAdultCitizen ScienceFamilyFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicOvarian NeoplasmsProgram DevelopmentResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35157722
PMCPMC8843236
OpenAlexW4212964895

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.