ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022
Co-designing a cancer care intervention: reflections of participants and a doctoral researcher on roles and contributions.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Psychological Impact of Caring for a Parent With Cancer on Adult Children of South Asian Heritage: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Co-designing solutions to promote awareness of cervical screening with women of low socio-economic position living in urban areas.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Patient-Centered Leadership and Co-Design of Services for Breast Cancer Program in Nicaragua.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of the impact of patient and public involvement on doctoral students in palliative dementia care research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Listening to Women's Voices: A Patient and Public Involvement Exercise Exploring Vulval Reconstructive Surgery for UK Women With Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The use of personas to involve consumers in healthcare co-design: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Co-designing a personalised care plan for patients with rectal cancer: reflections and practical learnings.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Article
- A virtuous cycle of co-production: Reflections from a community priority-setting exercise.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Coproducing health research with Indigenous peoples.Nature medicine · 2023Review
- Resilience at Work among Healthcare Professionals in Oncology during and beyond the Pandemic: Report from A Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Reflexive Symposium.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- The role of knowledge, primary care and community engagement to improve breast-screening access for Pakistani women in the United Kingdom: A secondary analysis of a qualitative study.Journal of health services research & policy · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and Public Involvement is most usually framed in the context of designing, conducting and/or disseminating research. Participatory methods such as Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) further allow service users to directly engage in developing, testing and implementing interventions and services alongside healthcare staff. This paper aims to explore how participants in an EBCD project came-over time-to perceive their role and involvement in co-designing a cancer care intervention.
methodsThe findings are based on our reflections, a research diary, email correspondence and fieldnotes from co-design events. Co-design participants who attended most of the ten co-design events took part through written reflections or audio-recorded video calls. Ten reflective pieces were collected from clinicians (n = 4), PPI group members/patient participants (n = 4), a doctoral researcher (n = 1) and a visual illustrator (n = 1). Inductive data analysis of participant reflections was carried out using reflexive thematic analysis. Meeting fieldnotes, email correspondence and the researcher's diary were deductively analysed using the initial themes generated from this inductive analysis.
resultsFive main themes were identified: (1) changing perception of roles during the co-design process, (2) defining a 'co-designer', (3) engagement and ownership, (4) role of the research facilitator in maintaining momentum, and (5) perceived benefits of involvement.
conclusionOur findings show the changing perceptions of roles and contributions among participants over time. Patients typically described their role as co-designers in terms simply of sharing their experiences. In contrast, clinicians perceived themselves as co-designers because they were working with patients who were actively involved in decision-making. Levels of engagement were affected by several factors such as time and facilitation, but most participants came to view themselves as co-owners of the intervention. Overall, participants perceived their involvement as a positive experience with clinicians also reporting wider positive impacts on their clinical practice.
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.