Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35918715›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Co-designing a cancer care intervention: reflections of participants and a doctoral researcher on roles and contributions.

Mary Anne Lagmay Tanay, Jo Armes, Catherine Oakley, Lesley Sage, Deb Tanner, Jose Roca, Liz Bryson, Barbara Greenall, Lauren Urwin, Toni Wyatt and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Patient-Centered Leadership and Co-Design of Services for Breast Cancer Program in Nicaragua.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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.

Mary Anne Lagmay TanayFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK. mary.tanay@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3637-6742
Jo ArmesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Catherine OakleyGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Lesley SagePatient Expert, London, UK.
Deb TannerPatient Expert, London, UK.
Jose RocaGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Liz BrysonPatient Expert, London, UK.
Barbara GreenallPatient Expert, London, UK.
Lauren UrwinOncology and Haematology Rehabilitation Unit, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Toni WyattOncology and Haematology Rehabilitation Unit, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Glenn RobertFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe Patients Association · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research DRF-2018-11-ST2-017
6 · The paper itself

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

CancerCo-designCo-productionExperience-based co-designIntervention developmentPatient and public involvementPPI

Identifiers

PMID35918715
PMCPMC9343815
OpenAlexW4289525095

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.